Jump to content

Mr. Nice

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Mr. Nice

  1. This is just trolling. Apollo shielding on the LM was Kapton / Mylar and micro-meteorite shielding. No tin. That is the kind of thing claimed by people ignorant of the design. As for intense space radiation, that only occurs when there are major solar events. None occurred during any Apollo mission.
  2. Let's examine that statement. There is no intense radiation and they didn't use tinfoil.
  3. What has been presented that I haven't refuted?
  4. You appear to be just trolling. Make your case, but use things you don't appear to be aware off like facts and citations. What do I actually need to say in response to somebody just attention seeking.
  5. Is this what you are going to do? Answer the post or choose a subject you know something about.
  6. Or you could go and read up on the matter and actually learn why you have been suckered.
  7. Ultra violet? Lol, seriously? Attenuated by the hull, you think it goes through aluminium and steel? Is this ireally your level of understanding on space radiation ?
  8. Noise. Urinate or vacate the pot.
  9. They went, brought back 842lbs of samples that cannot be faked. What intense radiation bullshit is this? Van Allen belt? They skirted the weaker areas on a 30 degree elevated trajectory that when incorporating the tilt of the Earth bypassed the more denser areas. Otherwise they would have had bad dose and been ill for a few days. What have you got on the matter? Some made up shite from a hoax film? Did you read about this on some hoax believer's blog? What bloody atmosphere? It's as strong as flea's fart! Just because it puzzles YOU, doesn't mean it puzzled the smart people who put it down. Conspiracy guff. If you want some education on Apollo, I can recommend some websites for you or you can post your cut and paste hoax-by-numbers here and I'll show you why it's all bollocks.
  10. Whoah there. I didn't Say Petit was accurate. I just took him literally in the same way as the daft conspiracy claimant and explained the situation. Now if he had said, we don't have the hardware anymore, THAT would be more accurate. Our survey says uuuu-uuurghh. Saying the technology used in 1969 was outdated doesn't mean we have purpose built, tested crafts to fly and land there already built right now. Sure it would be easier now, with the right investment. All the hard work was done in 1969 and much of the basis for today's methodology was established then. Orion was built fairly quickly and seems to be uo for the job but a new lander needs some work. Of course we could loosely model the new stuff on Apollo, but what are we trying to do? Repeat it? What for? Better it, needs some work. Don Petit isn't the spokesperson for the situation. They have better potential, but your inaccurate claim that they already have it is nonsense. Yes, redevelop NEW machinery. You take the old and create a newer version of it, once that works better and safer. The statement "the statement is meaningless" is actually meaningless. 0/10 Looks like some pretty off topic irrelevant guff there old boy. Don't try harder, just give up - we went.
  11. No. YOUR bare assertions and seriously odd observations are of no substance. I don't even know what you are referring to just above. This thread is about the Apollo Moon landings.
  12. Baffling. The "we destroyed the technology" line is correctly interpreted is it? Did you even read my full reply. What are you even talking about...dead astronauts on the Moon?
  13. I read it a few times and missed anything of substance. Thanks for sharing your rather unusual observations though.
  14. Um? We used to have the technology. That is all the necessary equipment. Amazing how you can take that statement and fail to understand it. What shocking and awful truth? This whole hogwash claim suggests Petit is saying we didn't go because of some crazy contrived interpretation of his meaning. Why? You wanna debate this?
  15. No they didn't. Grissom hung a lemon on the Command Module simulator because it was experiencing a whole range of issues, not least communications and also keeping it in sync with latest updates being done. They simply later worked through them all. We have footage in space showing the Command Module working as designed, with weightless experiments, so your argument, as always , is a lot of conspiracy guff. NASA - soopah secret meeting: Evil overlord Nazi baby eater boss: Hey, that Grissom criticised Boeing's craft Subservient Nazi: Yes, shall we take him off the program Evil overlord Nazi baby eater boss: No kill him and his crew. Subservient Nazi: Ye sir, we will arrange for a mishap. Evil overlord Nazi baby eater boss: No! Set fire to the Command Module! Subservient Nazi: But that will set us back years and the program might get cut. Evil overlord Nazi baby eater boss: Bwahahahahaha On a personal note, don't you think it a little cowardly to ignore where you are getting an arse kicking? How sad.
  16. Explain where. I replied to this already and you ran away: Since you haven't actually got any proof and I do. it's best that I kick this one sided debate off huh? NASA received 25.4 billion funding. Now I'm positive that you have no idea how that money was spent. NASA virtually subcontracted the whole lot out to a whole number of companies! The big stuff: Lunar Module development - Northrop Grumman Saturn V - Boeing Rockets - Rocketdyne Command Module - North American Aviation Lunar Rover - Boeing Spacesuits - ILC Dover (Playtex) Then we had the tools used developed by Black and Decker, Headsets and comms. developed by Polytronic (now Poly). Data Uplink system developed by Motorola. Fuel cells developed by Pratt and Whitney(then United Aircraft). Cryogenic gas storage developed by Beechcraft (then Beech Aircraft). Oxidiser tanks developed by General Motors. Timers and clocks developed by Hammond Organ co. Stabilisation system developed by Honeywell. Round 1, you just get knocked out dude. Unless you have got something to get off the floor with!
  17. Spam, already addressed by me and ignored by you. See a few post above. This is basically the typical moon hoax believer. Keep your head down, avoid all replies and spam the hoax-by-numbers.
  18. Spam, endless spam. Don Petit We USED to have it. Which part of that confuses you? We don't have it anymore for a whole variety of reasons. But here are some pointers for you to ignore, like you are doing: The blueprints for all machinery are held at the Marshall Space Centre. People on the internet sometimes print schematics and build models. The technology is outdated. Modern space travel has far more stringent safety standards. It IS a very long process to re-develop new machinery and fully test it.
  19. Must we really do this apples and oranges straight out the gate? Microwave radiation in close proximity to a cell tower bears no resemblance whatsoever to space radiation - specifically the charged particles within the VAR. Utter nonsense. The packaging is to stop moisture and atmospheric spoiling.
  20. What course? Apollo? Low energy transfer? Hohmann transfer orbit? A survey of ballistic transfers to low lunar orbit (nasa.gov)
  21. Proof you are spamming the debunked to death hoax by numbers. This particular one, I reckon over the years, I have personally addressed about 50 times. It's like the longest game of Whackamole in history, with none of the moles able to learn a bloody thing. Patrick Moore asked the astronauts something very specific. He asked them: "I have two brief questions that I would like to ask, if I may. When you were carrying out that incredible Moon walk, did you find that the surface was equally firm everywhere or were there harder and softer spots that you could detect. And, secondly, when you looked up at the sky, could you actually see the stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare?" Now Michael Collins who was part of the Solar Corona photography saw none and this is entirely expected! As for seeing stars in broad daylight, on the Moon, through 3 layers (infrequently 2) layers of visor - you need to dark adapt your eyes. That section is proof that YOU don't listen and are easily led by others equally afflicted. This is the DSCOVR sequence showing the Lunar transit from a million miles away! Clouds move at a local level and are seen to do so, but massive weather systems that we see on the globe move very slowly. Another total fail. No wonder you aren't replying to any of my posts
  22. Ok, so you want to dump bullshit in the thread. There is a thread to discuss the Moon landings, enter it and I will kick your arse. Specifics, not Apollo related unless you absolutely must!
  23. Ok people, I see this a lot around these parts. So offer me your best evidence. What the hell is this problem with NASA? If you feel the need to post a video (ONE AT A TIME please) , itemise the best bits and why and for crying out loud, be prepared to honestly defend it - instead of the customary scuttle away and pretend you haven't seen it. Here's the thing. When somebody says there are loads of things proving something and each "thing" you look at turns out to be a load of lies, poor observation, bare assertion or just bad research, then the "load of things" suddenly becomes NO things. Nothing. I'll start with the only thing I am aware of - the cover up of the faults with the Challenger launch vehicle. One swallow does not make a summer. It is inevitable that in any organisation over decades that you get some bad decisions. I need not list many companies who have crapped on their own doorstep just to make more sales. What have you got?
  24. There are no lies. Yes we did. I showed you the trajectory taken. Explain exactly why the shielding on the CSM was insufficient and explain why the trajectory provably taken (by photography and tracking) would cause danger.
  • Create New...