Jump to content

Mr. Nice

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Mr. Nice

  1. @alexaIs there any subject you post on that isn't influenced by ignorant claims? This claim was made on the other thread, page 2! This engineering marvel was built by these guys: Here it is without the cladding for micro-meteorites, and very expensive heat dispersion/ reflection foil Another whackamole, Apollo-conspiracy-by-numbers moment. Let's put it into perspective. NASA didn't even design this craft and if it was faked, the entire Grumman team built a machine not fit for purpose and there was an awful lot of them! Plus, why didn't NASA make their craft a work of visual art for the pictures. https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/5899/why-does-the-ascent-stage-of-apollo-11s-lunar-module-look-like-its-made-of-pap Like everything else, the ascent and descent stages were built to be as light as possible. But because they knew they would operate only in a vacuum, many things really didn't need to be sturdy, nor did the shape of it matter. It would never have to deal with aerodynamic drag. In fact, the descent stage was designed to buckle in the right places upon landing, that was how it absorbed the impact. It was only going to be used once, this was the most weight-efficient method of handling the shock of landing. Also, the complex insulation blankets covering the module had many layers, and contact points between the layers needed to be minimized so that heat wouldn't be passed through them by conduction. The black material is where thin Inconel sheets formed the outer layer of the insulation blanket, and they were painted matte black with Pyromark paint to improve their heat emission properties, so they would cool off quickly. (Black material both absorbs and emits heat better than material of other colors.) Beneath the black layer were reflective layers to prevent the heat of the black layer penetrating into the module. This treatment was done where the exhaust of the reaction control thrusters heated the lunar modules. It had a tendency to crinkle, and on this particular module, that may have been accentuated by the fact it was in fact installed at the last minute, as were the chutes under the thrusters. From the Lunar Module Coatings Page: Considering the vast ambition of going to the Moon for the first time, it isn't surprising some fixes were last-minute. The foil is Kapton MLI (multi-layer insulation) blankets, and it is actually pretty complex. In the places on the lunar modules that only needed to be a heat barrier to sunlight, high reflectivity was the most efffective approach, and those places are the shiny amber color of the Kapton. As there is no air in space to pass heat by convection, if you lower absorption of heat radiation by making surfaces that are highly reflective or emissive, and there are few contact points to pass heat by conduction, insulation can be highly effective. With the Kapton foil blankets, the contact points were reduced by hand-crinkling an inner layer of the blanket. From the Apollo News Reference: So, this is bound to make the outer layer rather uneven. All the other covering material you see is also just there to protect whatever is underneath from the effects of sunlight. Perhaps they were also thinking a bit about keeping dust out. That is all it has to do, and it was made merely sufficient for that job. Weight savings were more important than looks. The fancy stuff is underneath all those bare-bones panels. I found a different photo of the lander that gives a better sense of the complexity of it. The photo shows the Ascent Stage in the process of assembly, before the heat shielding had been put on it: This photo of an LM test article shows the sturdy underlying aluminum and titanium structure pretty clearly: And a quote from the book Chariots of Apollo available on the NASA website's History section: 'Scrape' and 'SWIP' were both programs Grumman, the company that fabricated the Lunar Module, instituted specifically to reduce the weight of the LM. I found both things on a great thread on the topic at CosmoQuest You can pore over the LM Apollo Operations Handbook for a great deal of technical information on the spacecraft, for more evidence.
  2. Yes I am. 100% positive. I provided a video taken in space showing weightlessness. There are so, so many things that team hoax have not a scooby-doo about. No, the presence of 842lbs of peer reviewed rocks and soil and 3m core samples does that. Visible motion that can only occur in low gravity proves it. Images showing Apollo hardware on the Moon proves it. Quite a bit more also proves it. "People" said that did they? Alienz huh? Do you think "people" have evidence for that or do you think maybe they mysteriously plucked it from their bottoms to try and sell books and stuff?
  3. Your opinion means nothing. Perhaps you are confusing it with proof. The flag was completely stationary as soon as they left it alone. Click the timeline at 6:00 then any other place afterwards, pick a half dozen points. The flag is completely still. Now apply logic. It moves about when they are putting it up. Then stops completely when they finish. What do your observational skills tell you about this!
  4. If you have to copy all the Apollo-hoax-sheeple, at least spell it right. Astronot. They provably went to space. If you want to start off from a position of fail before I've even begun to dissect this crap, at least do some basic research huh?
  5. No. This is the danger of not getting your eyes tested. We haven't even got out of the starting gate and already we have the kind of response I would expect from Stevie Wonder.
  6. There is no difference. It's astronaut. The clip on DarianF's video takes a clip from the full EVA I posted. I don't care what you "doubt". You need to go to the opticians. It's the same camera and the same EVA.
  7. BULLSHIT! The video is authentic, you are the one who thinks it is different to the one I posted showing where that clip comes from!
  8. No, really it isn't. There was only the one camera - how can you not know this. Your time stamp is wrong. I "will see", when he has let go of it, that the damn thing doesn't move in any way whatsoever. If you say it does, this is going to be one of those "debates" where things go nowhere because you need to visit Specsavers. All you need to do is go to 52 minutes, then drag the cursor along the time-line and watch the small screen showing the flag is the same for the entire time after he lets go. Don't make me fart around and make a gif just to prove this!
  9. @DalePInstead of me (and/or others) answering your "newly discovered" observations, why don't you just read some websites where all this junk has been taken apart? MOON HOAX: DEBUNKED! (moonhoaxdebunked.com) Moon landing conspiracy theories, debunked | Royal Museums Greenwich (rmg.co.uk) Clavius Moon Base - debunking the moon hoax
  10. Dude, I've seen this clip a thousand times. YOU look again! Facepalm? Really? This crap has been debunked 20 years ago. You stumble upon it and like every other hoax believer fail to check a single thing. It stops when he lets go of it - it moves more because a) less gravity b) no atmosphere to slow it. At 47 mins:
  11. I am going to assume that you have zero physics knowledge. In a vacuum there is still the same inertia. He moves the pole, the flag moves. he stops moving the pole, the flag stops. If it was atmosphere making the flag move, it would carry on when he let go.
  12. To what are you referring? A random crater or the Apollo seismology device recording the spent Apollo craft impacting the Moon? Meteorites hit the Moon at crazy speeds. Some are tiny and make small craters, some are huge and ........
  13. I'm not concerned about your opinion on the matter. If you care to present your evidence I will show you why it is bollocks.
  14. It's really difficult to debate somebody who doesn't know the subject and doesn't provide any material to debate. You failed to acknowledge the point made in the video. Namely that the "hoax" film was made by a dishonest person who deliberately falsified his result and made a provably absurd claim.
  15. Nope. You need to substantiate the ramblings of your source. It has craters. Meteors "land" on the Moon. The owner of this forum cites a seismic experiment on the Moon as proof that the Moon rang like a bell.
  16. So you claim Surveyor is faked as well? Show me where his theory was proven. Now provide evidence for any fakery - List of artificial objects on the Moon - Wikipedia
  17. Uhuh. No, I didn't miss any point. Show me where his theory was proven. Clue: it never was. Surveyor landed 1 year later - his interview is absolutely absurd.
  18. It's been around for 60 odd years, it's quite safe. This is huge? In what way? He basically contradicted everything she claims - the Earth is a sphere.
  19. Oh, you mean NASA should actually not do space exploration and should feed African kids instead? Rock solid proof of a hoax huh? Isn't this the job for the almighty?
  20. They do feed the world. The creation of jobs through any company enables people to work and support their families. The infrastructure to create the machinery and build things, deliver them etc. If you came into this thread to poke up your flag of virtue, gee, well done! Back up your claims about low Earth orbit, which to be honest is hysterical given that you think the bloody world is flat!
  21. They spend their budget on things like The James Webb telescope or the Parker solar probe. It may have escaped your attention, but NASA subcontracts out nearly ALL its budget to other companies that develop and build the hardware. NASA in 2021 | NASA Solar System Exploration What should a space exploration agency spend their money on?
  22. They can. They need newer versions of this equipment and developed for bigger crew, bigger payloads. Like this: https://www.nasa.gov/specials/artemis/
  23. Yes they can. Yes they could. Well, a stunningly stupid claim in the first place - they placed a rocket in Low Earth parking orbit at 17,500mph. The rocket was restarted and accelerated the craft to 25,000mph. This placed it in a very eccentric elliptical orbit. The outer portion of the orbit intersected the Moon's path, like this: That gif illustrates a free-return trajectory, so just as the craft arrives at the Moon it fires an orbital insertion and is captured in orbit by the Moon.
  24. I definitely answered this post. Equating occasional particles to dna damaging radiation is like equating a glass of salty water to the Atlantic ocean. Do you have anything more than your huff 'n' puff?
  25. It's faked up to 26 seconds. Then it uses footage taken on the Moon. I think this was taken from an advert they did a while back. Oh and I could see the wires. It wasn't this one, but it's quite funny... Send him over to debate it then. Otherwise it's hearsay and bare assertion. My mate who works with this bloke at Tesco, said his dad knows a teacher who knows one of the engineers who worked on Apollo. He says it happened exactly as claimed and they brought back 842lbs of peer reviewed samples to prove it.
  • Create New...