* Posts by MrReal

271 posts • joined 1 Jun 2017

Page:

It's Becoming Messy: Judge says IBM's request to shut down age-discrimination lawsuit should be rejected

MrReal

IBM has long got rid of experienced staff in favour of new clueless people who haven''t a clue about business and technology.

It's a very odd strategy that has lost IBM huge amounts of market share, research, business and money.

I suppose we should expect that from the company who bungled the PC and lost to Microsoft's inferior OS after creating OS/2.

BBC tells Conservative Party to remove edited Facebook ad featuring its reporters

MrReal

The BBC was always the voce of the establishment

Ever since the BBC kept Prince Charles's friend Jimmy safe and wealthy I've not really trusted them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esKnWAIgpLY

'That roar is terrific... look at that rocket go!' It's been 52 years since first Saturn V left the pad

MrReal

Re: Half an idea...

Haha, you are a prime example.

No evidence, no argument, just an attempted put-down LOL, your faith is bigger than you.

Perhaps IT fosters a type of intellectual vacuum.

MrReal

this person

Which person?

A. It was possible to fake: the evidence is that they did fake it. Badly.

B. Is your resort to name calling and insults from lack of education or a distrust of science?

C. You have failed to highlight a single instance of 'ignorance and stupidity' except perhaps in your post.

You appear to be confused by someone who holds different views from yourself and disagrees with your blind faith in this matter. If you care about Apollo being real so much why can't you show any evidence for it that survives a cursory analysis?

The weathered earth rocks in the NASA photos are solid, direct evidence for the photos being faked. Perhaps you need to start rationalising why NASA would fake them all if they really went, and why no one has even been above Low Earth Orbit since the Apollo myths?

MrReal

Re: lack of political will

GWBush and his dad had quite a bit of power, something you'd know if you were a little older or more knowledgable.

They were also Presidents, a political posts that requires lots of votes. When Bush ordered NS to go back that was his own will.

Perhaps you are using the same method of defining 'political will' as you use for 'landing on the moon' ?

MrReal

Re: Buran was better

Why indeed? It wasn't really my question but thanks for posting the info.

I wonder if the new telescope will be able to photograph these alleged landing sites? I suspect NASA is already working on a set of reasons as to why this will not be possible.

I note that was are in 2020 now, NASA was ordered to return to the moon no later than 2020, in November 2019 how close are they?

MrReal

NASA is part of the USA military

Perhaps you can explain why documents about the moon's exploration - even dating back to 1959 are still classified Top Secret?

E.g: "Lunar Research Flights" report by L. Reiffel dated June 19, 1959

There are many others.

Can you think of any secrets NASA would want to keep from you?

MrReal

Re: A very poor fake

And I know what Buzz said to the little girl who asked him why they had never returned to the moon:

He admitted they'd never gone in the first place, caught off guard by the innocence.

I'd get on just fine with Buzz, I'm aware of the immense pressure he is under and has been under for 50 years, he is a victim as much as anyone else. Look at them in the Apollo11 press conference, they've had to live with that sadness all these years.

Perhaps one day TRUTH's PROTECTIVE LAYERS will be pulled back for those who still cannot see.

MrReal

Re: in the next few years,

Yes it's always 'in the next few years'.

That's NASA's motto for anything involving a living person above LEO (Low Earth Orbit) and the one thing you can rely on every country religiously following. For half a century that 'in a few years' has worked wonders, in that time America has invaded many countries and spent $trillions while people wait for NASA - or anyone else, to actually build something, anything, for the job.

Remember NASA itself had those 'several experienced NASA engineers' and stayed in LEO, it's a constant cause by an embarrassing, difficult fact: RADIATION.

That's why no one ever tries. Simple, boring, deadly.

The VAB (Van Allen Belt) is a rapid death but the type of radiation there is not super high energy - same as the solar wind, and any future craft if properly constructed - perhaps with superconducting magnets etc may be able to cope with that.

Cosmic radiation outside of the VAB is the real insoluble problem, the heavy ions rip through everything, NASA estimates over a year (365 days) 33% of a man's cell nuclei will be struck by a heavy ion. This means a 6 day moon mission strikes 33% x (6/365) = 0.5% will be hit, giving any astronaut certain cancer. That's according to NASA's own figures: not mine.

Travelling through and outside the VAB may one day be possible, but not with any technology known about today, and as the US marches around the world destabilising and destroying one country after another the chances of finding such a technology is rapidly dying.

MrReal

in the next few years,

It's been 'in the next few years' ... for HALF A CENTURY now, despite GWBush ordering NASA back in 2004 - some 16 years ago, since when NASA has started work on... absolutely nothing required to do it.

I do admire your patience though :).

The Apollo 16 UV camera is great, it proves that NASA says the use of a telescope is fine on the moon (I note no one complains of glare, big gloves, space taken etc :D ), but still manages to avoid taking any visible light images of the earth or stars (from the surface - sans windows), instead giving us some images pulled from some UV telescope LOL.

NASA have been so inventive in avoiding the Van Allen belts, obvious photos (earth and stars) and showing uncut film of the Apollo 11 (etc.) launches that I do wonder if instead they'd concentrated on the remaining barrier: Van Allen belt radiation and the most difficult: the cosmic ray soup beyond, they'd have come up with a few solutions by now.

If only they hadn't taken so many sky averse photos of earth weathered landscapes, clean smooth rocks and rounded boulders they have had more time to actually build something that might be useful one day.

MrReal

Re: A very poor fake

All those folks in Mission Control - why would they need to know? Could they tell the difference between a simulation used to train and verify the systems or the real mission? Unlikely when they've just seen a giant rocket blast off.

Why would the capsule handlers need to be told? NASA is DOD: Need To Know. Only the pilots dropping the CMs out the back of their transport planes needed to know.

No one received signals from the moon, they received them from a very small number of big dishes.

Probably less people than Project Manhattan needed to know the truth, the program details are still classified and NASA has many films (such as the Apollo 11 launch to staging) that they will never release.

Believe the Apollo fantasy if you like, but know that there's no evidence for it that sticks and plenty of problems with the story - not least NASA's reluctance even under GWBush's orders to put a man above Low Earth Orbit. 16 years later and NASA shows no sign of building anything for the moon at all.

At the end of the day Apollo has done exactly nothing for NASA, they have never repeated any part of the trip and today can't get a man into orbit. The radiation is still the big barrier which is why no nation even attempts to send a man though, even China.

Total men sent above Low Earth Orbit by any nation since the 1969 stories = ZERO.

MrReal

Re: The lunar day is around 30 earth days

You can still take star photos with non stationary or tracking telescopes, you simply get lines instead of dots - not the end of the world.

But you don't seem to understand what a 709 hour day is like. A 1sec exposure on the earth moves as far as a 30sec exposure on the moon.

So Neil or Buzz could have clipped their camera to the LEM in shadow, pointed it up and exposed it for 5 solid minutes and that's the same star movement as 300/30 = 10 seconds on earth. With a 60mm lens that's not going to make some spectacular images of the Milky Way.

The NASA engineers who prepared the cameras and lens were clever people who knew this, the long 709 hour lunar days has been common knowledge for thousands of years.

They would have also wanted the first clear, sharp images of the earth from 250,000 miles too.

The idea NASA did all that work to get 12 (14 planned) people onto the moon and back without photos of stars and the earth is one of fantasy: not reality,

MrReal

A poor fake

The fake wasn't intricate at all.That's why people keep spotting the holes !!

Very few people needed to be in on it, training simulations provided most of the photos, and how exactly did you want to 'spill the beans'? An astronaut?

Susan Crockford could tell you about the problems of telling the truth, since she discovered that polar bears are doing well she's been dropped like a hot potatoe!

Bill Kaysing 'spilled the beans' - did that help?

The 'moon' rocks have been examined by exactly nobody. NASA has sent some rocks to some people, the chain of custody is completely broken - one has to believe NASA to believe in the rocks analysis so your argument is circular. Lunar sourced meteors were found on earth long before Apollo.

A better argument is that NASA photographed earth rocks with weathering - that's direct evidence that any geologist of your choosing will verify if you talk to them off the record.

AS16-106-17393 and AS17-140-21496 are a good start.

MrReal

The lunar day is around 30 earth days

You don't need a tracking mount on the moon as the day is 30 x longer than the earth. If they did, NASA would have given them one. Fast film is not needed with a long shutter speed - it's a 'number of photons' problem, not taking photos at a football game.

You are merely demonstrating that NASA sent 7 missions to the moon with inadequate equipment for taking the obvious photos everyone wanted to see. Even if you were right that makes no sense.

MrReal

Do you know it was an hypergolic engine

Yes I did, the lack of visible plume has often been discussed as many think it should have a thick (red IIRC) smoke.

It wasn't 'away' from the astronauts: the parts were bolted metal - rubber engines mounts from the nearest V8 Chevy weren't used. Metal is a solid and transmits sound extremely well - which you'll find out if you hammer a nail into anything.

The vacuum is irrelevant as the sound will be transmitted straight into the air filled cabin and into their mics.

I'm sure it was 'throttable' but it still had 16 tones to bring to a halt from thousands of mph. Apollo 11 was an untested landing too, the LM had never been flown close to the surface in 1/6g, the pilot Neil had a record of crashing the simulator and there was no audible sign of the stability computer working - which should have been clicking the thrusters on and off in the background faster than Neil, and no sign of instability.

Additionally Apollo 14 shows how much damage the pressure of the tiny ascent engine causes to the LEM insulation yet the descent always looked exactly like it had been lowered by a crane.

MrReal

a wide-scale hoax

What technology would they need to fake it?

1. Lots of 'training' missions on realistic situations - check

2. Control over the Apollo feed with a tape delay box - check

3. No photos of stars of the earth - check

4. Avoid anyone seeing the uncut Apollo 11 launch - check

5. Some meteors gathered in antarctica - check

6. Some dodgy studio photos with no horizon and spot lighting - check

7. A decent escape chute from Saturn V - check

8. Masking the people jumping out of the capsule at splashdown - check

What exactly are they missing?

Why would your father know anything?

No one in the Manhattan project knew anything.

The soviets were shut out of the Apollo 11 launch by a naval blockade.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that they faked it well. They didn't, it's a terrible fake that has endless mistakes in - your belief system is merely rationalising over the holes. The power of belief is HUGE, way bigger than you think or can imagine. That's the point.

MrReal

The moon landings were staged by Stanley Kubrick

He only filmed Apollo 11's video, Apollo 12 had a convenient 'technical fault', Apollo 13 was the ridiculous 'disaster but they are all Ok' non landing and then Apollo 14 landed on an entirely different moon which was much more evenly lit, had wide expanses of 'regolith' and didn't have any horizon 30 feet from the LEM such as in AS11-40-5928.

I also think if they'd really gone they'd have taken photos of the earth, stars and some moon, instead of thousands of pictures of weathered rocks on earth... :D

MrReal

Father Christmas

It's interesting that one of the first lessons we teach our children is to accept a giant lie, and then live with the knowledge that it was a lie 'but doesn't really matter'.

I think at a deep level that softens up many to some of the Big Whoppers from government :D

MrReal

modern rocketry has come on leaps and bounds

Agreed, which makes man's shyness of going above LEO all the more puzzling...

.... unless Apollo was faked, in which case it makes perfect sense. Radiation.

MrReal

Re: Poor filing practice?

Von Braun's original idea (as he shows in the 1957 Disney documentary on it) was to use shuttles as a bus service to construct a moon rocket in orbit.

Braun left NASA after Apollo, perhaps disappointed by the show that went nowhere and featured the F-1 motors that were of considerably poorer design than that of the V2 motor he worked with 20 years earlier.

MrReal

A scientific puzzle - that Schmitt never noticed..

The charge idea is good, although a weak/missing magnetic field means most charge would be neutral but yes - it's interesting none of the astronauts ever saw sparking or noticed any static, I think you have just spotted Yet Another Detail that NASA forgot about, even while claiming to measure it!

Very interesting. The electric environment on the moon would certainly be lively, like the inside of a vacuum tube. Perhaps a glow around the LEM would have also been visible if they'd been on the moon rather than a studio. Perhaps a crackle of static as they touched the LEM, charging up like a Van De Graaf for hours.

However we have rocks that show sand on some parts but not others - the one Schmitt examined in fact - Tracy's rock: AS17-140-21496

I often do think of dust as snow, a very dusty old room or those youtube videos of timelapse snowfall. The funny thing with a timelapse snow build-up is that the lunar surface as photographed by NASA doesn't look like that at all, but like bits of windswept Nevada.

Your dune effect is also insightful - I think they must have worked hard to smooth that out, some sand shows it less than others and cinder lake doesn't seem to show it either.

AS11-40-5912 is interesting as it contains many small pock-marks that look exactly like a beach after it's been raining.

Another interesting thing is to look at the training photos like ap17-KSC-72PC-440 - which show clean rocks and sand - the sand making the exact same quality of footprints that NASA claim form in the vacuum dried dust on the moon.

MrReal

Retro-reflector vs Primary school Mathematics

Ah yes, the case of the phantom reflectors. Is a retro reflector that accurate over 250,000 miles? Even if it is and it's not covered in dust (unlike the rocks LOL) there's three problems:

A. Prior to Apollo laser ranging was used. If you wanted to claim a reflector was placed on the moon you'd simply choose a brighter spot (The moon is not a uniform grey!) and claim it was there.

B. There is no 'before' measurement to see if the reflection improved when it was 'added'.

C. Basic Maths. It's a long way away so the laser 'dot' is actually 6.5km across when it gets there.

6.5km dot, area = Pi.r^2 = 3.14 x 3250 x 3250 = 10562500 m2

0.45m x 0.45m reflector = 0.2025m2

Albedo = 12% or 0.12, assume mirror is 100% or 1.0, giving an elevation of 0.88 over the surface reflection.

Area = 0.2025 / 10562500 = 0.0000000191716. Multiply by the 0.88 = 0.00000001687101

So in percentage terms the phantom reflector would make 0.00000169 % difference to the reflected laser.

QED: The reflector is a lovely story, but can never be proven.

MrReal

solid rocket boosters

I haven't changed my story at all, plus it's not a story - unlike Apollo.

Apollo11 never made it into orbit, later, emptier Saturn launches may well have, it's difficult to know until (if) the US Government declassifies the associated documents for the program.

All we can be reasonably certain of was that AS11 was travelling too slowly to make it.

The lack of Pogo with a solid booster means you don't have to throttle it - you can always throttle a later stage if you get your orbital calculations wrong, or discard them in an emergency. For 9m lbf thrust as a 20% better first stage for a moon-ship three of them are a perfect fit.

The press boats never saw the astronauts emerge from the capsule - faces were always covered for 'contamination' reasons.

The landing accuracy (search for Apollo_18-40_Entry_Splashdown_and_Recovery) is too good for 1969 tech. You want to believe that Apollo 13 with manual firing and notepad calculations landed 1.0nm from the spot - go ahead - but don't expect me to :D. That's a task with a helicopter and GPS!

Do an internet search for the Apollo CM capsules recovered for Apollo 11,12,13,14,15,16,17 and you will see how NASA has a hard time telling which one is which. This is due to them not needing any more than one or two at the time.

MrReal

lack of political will

GWBush, January 2004, nearly 16 years ago ordered them back.

With 50 years of progress - what's keeping them?

MrReal

Buran was better

The Buran was better because

A. The launch system was usable for other things too

B. The craft was lighter once in orbit - needing less fuel to move around

C. It was fully remote capable

I'm not sure how one demonstrates A or B, it's just a fact.

No Buran didn't really have it's own engines like the Shuttle, they were just for orbital stuff - not for launch.

Perhaps you should ask NASA how they will maintain Hubble? From driving on the moon to not having a method doesn't seem like progress does it?

Why would the Soviets disprove Apollo? Easier to let the lie sit and take the grain shipments, it's coming back to bite NASA anyway.

MrReal

Hubble is designed with Sun shields

What is a 'Sun Shield'?

It's something that was refer to as an opaque material that casts a shadow: The LEM is also a 'Sun Shield'.

A simple camera mount on the shadow side and a slow shutter is all they needed for some top star images. They could have also done that as a support for a telephoto lens for a picture of the Earth.

We learned nothing more from Apollo about the moon that looking at meteors that came from pieces knocked off the moon - which we've had before and after Apollo. Von Braun knew that too as he visited Antarctica to collect some.

MrReal

I'm sure you could have done a far better job.

You weren't on the moon, what you watched was a carefully controlled feed that NASA has since destroyed the best resolution copy of, on a grainy black and white picture filmed straight off a phosphor monitor at NASA - not even a properly converted feed.

You saw someone climb down a suspiciously thick ladder and say a pithy script, part of a team of three people who forgot to (try to) take any photos of the earth, stars and sulked their way through a press conference before leaving NASA for good.

Then after Vietnam was lost and the Apollo story ended NASA proceeded to forget and destroy everything they ever knew about manned space travel and built any entirely different craft from scratch, and never once claimed to have ventured past the Van Allen Belts ever again - despite their jolly trip in Apollo 8 with 3 live american guinea pigs that went so swimmingly well that it was only a matter of time before we had a restaurant on the moon.

The building of the rockets wasn't fake or pointless, the cold war was in full switch and ICBM missile technology was one of the goals, as were spy satellites and controlling space. The only thing 'fake' they did was pretend their ridiculous moon equipment worked and that they went there.

The evidence for the fake is rock solid: literally.

AS16-106-17393

AS17-140-21496

are NASA's proud photos of rocks that can only exist on earth and so prove the photographic record is fake. The lack of dust everywhere as a uniform coating and the weathering and smoothed out sand around the rocks clearly shows a scene that's impossible on the moon.

MrReal

how do you operate it with gloves and helmets?

That's a great question.

How do you fix an LRV mudguard with gloves and helmets?

How you you bend over in a pressure suit to take a photo of your own foot?

How do you corner sharply in a buggy with only 1/6 downforce - like driving on ice with slicks?

Your axis of rotation for the moon is irrelevant as the day is over 700 hours long LOL.

What makes me believe they would have got interesting images of the Earth from the Moon is AS11-40-5923 and AS11-40-5924 - are you saying they are not real?

If NASA could send a man 250,000 miles to the moon for a drive in an electric buggy on live TV I'm pretty sure they could arrange to take a photo of the earth. Don't you? They even took a video of Apollo 14 ascent from the moon - all the insulation flying everywhere which particularly contrasted to the descent of a heavier object, closer to the ground with a far bigger motor that didn't disturb any insulation.

The beauty of Apollo is that there is a fake or 'hole' wherever you look, it's such a rich story for mistakes.

MrReal

which Russian ever went beyond Low Earth Orbit, with all those marvelous

None.

Yes, that's THE point: No one, even with the capable hardware, has EVER been above Low Earth Orbit, the un-repeated anomaly is the Apollo story of 8 trips and rounds of golf and buggy racing.

MrReal

Re: Love watching space rockets, especially Saturn V lift off's

Loving the thumbs down - that's the count of frustrated searchers for an uncut launch film of Apollo 11 from lift off to staging some 169 seconds later. I feel your pain.

169 seconds of launch film from NASA of Apollo 11 isn't too much to ask is it?

We can see the snips of it in the newsreels, but we are denied the ability to time the cloud piercing event to calculate the speed.

A Russian has calculated the speed at staging however from the angle of the supersonic cone and found that instead of going 2.4km/s as per the Flight Plan it is going at 1km/s - thus proving that Apollo 11 was a great show but never made orbit.

Neil, Buzz and Micheal therefore took the escape chute that The BBC's Burke shows us on youtube just before takeoff - which would explain their sulking at the Apollo 11 press conference, and Neil telling Patrick Moore that he didn't see any stars from the Lunar surface - despite standing right next to the giant black shadow of the LEM while also forgetting to take a picture of the Earth to show the kids.

MrReal

Re: In any case it was good enough to get the job done.

LOL, AS11-40-5928 shows us Apollo 11 was shot in a small studio.

Look at the shadow - touching the horizon. Where's the ground gone?? It's the edge of the soundstage and the black backdrop curtain, unless the moon really is only 100 yards across that's a studio!

MrReal

Re: "whereas nothing from Apollo is."

There is some doubt that Gagarin was a) the first or b) went into space at all, he is always pictured in a parachute suit rather than a space suit and dies in mysterious circumstances.

The USSR lying about Gagarin doesn't however prove Apollo landed on the moon rather than a convenient studio at MGM Borehamwood does it?

NASA had ORDERS to return to the moon from GWBush and at the time had no shortage of equipment - it had the SRB heavy lift and decades of advances. I shied away from the task like a slug from a grain of salt.

I agree the Shuttle was was a marvel, but after Apollo was it so clever? Buran was better as the Energia launch system was reusable, it was fully remote capable (it's only flight) and better for not having to lug its own engines around.

The problem however with both Buran and the Shuttle was that apart from James Bond films they weren't really much use for anything that wasn't done cheaper and better with a simple rocket.

MrReal

Re: "They could have built one into the LEM quite well"

They didn't need a dome, there's no weather on the moon. They could just stick the camera, facing up, on a mount attached to the shadow side of the LEM. The sun doesn't shine in shadow.

Shadows are cold and dangerous (ever hear an astronaut comment about the heat of the sun and the cold of a shadow? Me neither) - but they did go into it, see AS11-40-5886.

Star photos taken from the moon have scientific value even if you - as a non-scientist - can't see them.

The mission objectives were many and varied, the dust should have been coating everything but looks exactly like the sand in the Nevada regolith in the US, even down to the sand free rocks outcrops and smooth weathered edges of those rocks and stones. Photos show many rounded rocks sitting in and on the sand. How did they get there? How did they get rounded? Why is there no dust on top of them? Why do some sit on top of undisturbed dust?

BTW Hubble is in the sun constantly, silly huh? You should tell NASA how foolish they are.

MrReal

Re: Shameful

The problem is solar/VAB and cosmic radiation, very boring, very simple, very deadly: no aliens required.

The social programs cost virtually nothing next to the real cost: WAR. The USA spends $trillions every year on war, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria etc.

While they have their wars and the radiation keeps us below Low Earth Orbit nothing will happen.

MrReal

Re: Shameful

I'm sure there was, but that doesn't mean they worked well enough.

By the 1980s NASA had thrown the F-1 away and designed the SRBs which would have been good enough however - just three SRBs give 9m lbf thrust, enough for a far better rocket than the SaturnV.

So why didn't they go back then, when GWBush asked them to? Well in 1969 they didn't just have inadequate equipment, but they also had the Radiation Problem.

50 years later the rockets etc are simple - but notice than no one from any country has even attempted to get a man past Low Earth Orbit: the radiation barrier (of both the VAB and beyond) are still unsolved.

MrReal

Re: In any case it was good enough to get the job done.

So your son has a nice telescope but NASA didn't think to give any of the 7 missions one. I think that says something.

NASA also didn't give the astronauts the simple, basic, obvious equipment needed to take some decent pictures of the earth either. The astronauts said how lovely the earth looked - strange then none could be bothered (or were instructed) to take any photos of it from the lunar surface,

Your son appears to have considerably more interest in space than either NASA or the 12 astronauts who walked around on the moon, furiously taking many thousands of photos of pointless grey dust and earth weathered rocks, smoothed by the windy Nevada regolith.

NASA can't get a man into orbit today yet you believe they drove around on the moon some 50 years ago LOL, how many decades are you going to wait while NASA manufacture excuses for not going above LEO?

MrReal

In any case it was good enough to get the job done.

That the F-1 'got the job done' is debatable because speed analysis shows that the Apollo 11 rocket was going far too slowly.

NASA has a earth based film of AS11 piercing a cloud layer, but we don't know how hight the cloud is or _when_ they pierce it. The speed at that moment can be calculated by timing how long the 100 metre AS11 takes to go through it. NASA will not release the uncut film.

If you look closely at the Apollo photos you'll see that many stones sit of top of the undisturbed regolith, while others sit embedded but have clean tops, weathered smooth. AS16's 'Shadow Rock' and AS17's Tracy's rock are good examples. The presence of stones and rocks with earth weather erosion and cleaning indicates the Apollo photos are all faked, which is more evidence that NASA didn't go anywhere.

MrReal

Re: Poor filing practice?

Three SRBs are 20% better than the 1st stage of SaturnV.

7.5m lbf vs 9m lbf: 20% more thrust for the same period. Better.

The F-1 design was very risky - thinwall tubes are not as safe as a double walled chamber. They only get safer with less pressure, less pressure = less thrust and less efficiency = a slow rocket than never gets to orbit. That's the real story of Apollo 11.

Since Apollo NASA has done wonderful work to avoid man going into the Van Allen belts, it's almost as if they fear the radiation of the VAB and beyond. Which of course they do: for good reason.

NASA never went anywhere with Apollo, that's why the story is full of holes and inconsistencies, that's why their 'moon' photos are full of weathered landscapes and why no one has ever even tried to go back.

MrReal

Re: "The N-1 was abandoned before it was used"

Yes it did blow up - 4 times I think - but the technology is still used today - whereas nothing from Apollo is. Given that NASA can't get a man into orbit today I'm not sure you have much to celebrate - men get to and from the ISS on a Russia rocket.

Looking at NASA today it's as if Apollo never happened. An obvious reason is that perhaps it didn't..

There is no evidence the F-1 worked as advertised as NASA has withheld the launch tapes that would show that - and NASA's photos also contain rather a large number of earth weathered rocks - so are therefore not taken on the moon.

Additionally however much you liked the F-1 NASA didn't and get rid of it as soon as they could - no rocket motor has since been built to that brazed tubular design. Ever. Not even the German V2...

MrReal

Re: Why would they take photo's of the stars from the moon?

In Apollo 11 they only took 2 photos from the surface (i.e. not through a window) that included the earth.

AS11-40-5923

AS11-40-5924

Neither Neil or Buzz recall who took them, the earth is fuzzy and rather darker than it should be, the exposure shows that it was added later in the lab. Lots of pictures of dust, but NONE of earth.

Any focal length will get a photo of the earth - they got it in AS11-40-5923 + AS11-40-5924 - all they needed to do was take a photo of just the earth and get it in focus. Too much to ask?

They could perhaps have taken a longer lens too - perhaps they didn't know they were going to the moon? Oh wait - I think they did - so maybe they just 'forgot' seven times in a row to take the right lens?

You are also wrong about 'better' photos from orbit, the more accurate perspective is with a long lens and a photo set from the moon should show small amounts of 'gravitational lensing' and is therefore of great scientific interest.

Take a look at the Apollo 11 photos. The moon is a very boring place, all the interest is in the stars and earth, plus the planets. So what did they do? Ignored it completely and then cried in the press conference about man's greatest and most successful achievement. Unreal.

MrReal

Re: "They could have built one into the LEM quite well"

Did _you_ see the space in the LEM?

Yet they fitted all the ASLEP equipment and even shoved in a complete jeep later on.

What makes you think a telephoto lens and a camera body that can do long exposures takes more space and weight than a jeep?

Plenty of space.

MrReal

Re: "'forget' how to go above Low Earth Orbit."

Pioneer 10, 11, Voyager 1 and 2, New Horizon, Galileo, Cassini, Messenger, and the rovers wandering around Mars..

.. are UNMANNED.

Since the Apollo stories ZERO men, women or confused have been above Low Earth Orbit.

None.

0

Nada.

MrReal

Re: That roar is terrific

It's interesting how loud the F-1 motor is (The crackling sound is the turbo-pump, the only modern well designed part of the engine and it's huge job of forcing all that fuel through those thinwall tubes) ...

.... but the LEM motor that Neil and Buzz and standing next to is silent while it slows 16 tons from thousands of mph to park on the moon.

MrReal

Why would they take photo's of the stars from the moon?

If you have to ask that, you won't understand the answer.

Let me guess, you don't see the point of photographing the earth from the moon either?

...but are happy with the thousands of photos of wind-blown sand and weathered clean rocks.

MrReal

Go on then, what's the answer?

There is no answer that fits the theory that they really landed on the moon.

NASA would simply put up an Apollo11 page and links to all the films of the launches. Simple.

Instead they lose all the hi-res video feed and 'forget' how to go above Low Earth Orbit.

The only conclusion that fits NASA's actions is that they failed to get above orbit, and Apollo11 failed even that. Look at the landing coordinates and accuracies for the splashdowns. From 250,000 miles away they get within 1.0 nautical miles of the designated target with 1969 technology. Even with Apollo 13!!

It's just nonsense.

MrReal

Re: Poor filing practice?

But inaccurate.

NASA didn't throw away or lose anything that was required to get to the moon.

They did scrap their celebrated F-1, but the SRBs they made were far far better in every way.

MrReal

Re: "ahead of the Americans in rocket motor technology."

The N-1 was abandoned before it was used, but for all your attention to the N-1 you divert attention from the NK-33, a design which the USA buys today as the RD-180.

The shuttle's main engines were fine, as was the J-2, but there are lots of commercial alternatives for the midrange motors. The ace that NASA really has wasn't the F-1 motor that looked and sounded so good - and then was immediately dumped (after all that R&D and reliability!!) it was the Shuttle SRBs.

The problem with NASA is that they act as if Apollo never happened and was faked. This leads many to conclude that Apollo wasn't real and the landings were faked. The launches did all look good however, even if today we are denied the uncut launch - to - 1st stage separation film.

MrReal

Re: Love watching space rockets, especially Saturn V lift off's

There is no copy on any medium of Apollo 11's uncut flight as viewed from the launch area.

Just snippets out of time in the newsreels.

Many people have analysed the Apollo11 flight and found it was travelling far too slowly to reach orbit, NASA could prove them all wrong by simply releasing that footage. If they went.

MrReal

Re: "or a low speed shutter option so they could photograph the stars"

They could have built one into the LEM quite well, or at least a clip to attach one to.

Hubble manages with the sun in the 'sky'. Shadows are perfect in a vacuum, the LEM has a very big shadow.

What kind of science to several thousand photos of dust make? Only that most of them contain scenes with smooth weathered rocks, blown clean by wind, scoured and surrounded by stones that somehow go there without disturbing that 'dust' (sand).

MrReal

Re: Shameful

As I mention above they are of a brazed tubular design, which means huge pumping losses, complicated error prone design and an limit of pressures due to the thinwall tubes.

I.e. The F-1 can achieve 70bar pressure before it blows up, double wall designs (like ironically - the original V2 German design) can do 200bar easily. The higher the pressure = the faster the gas escapes = the less fuel needed for the same thrust.

Page:

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR WEEKLY TECH NEWSLETTER

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020