Hoaxesssss innnnn Spaaaaaace

SlowBlowin

bfa1509 wrote: »

I can go at it with any opposers who are willing to spend the energy!!

Why say it then do the opposite ?

Cheerful Spring2

mickdw wrote: »

Well at the most basic level, I don't believe they had the ability to accurately navigate the space craft to intercept the moon on it's own path at exactly the right position to then be pulled into moons orbit and land from there. There are just so many things that could go wrong with that. I'd expect much of what they would experience would be unknown / unexpected and it would not be at all strange for them to crash, get lost/not return at all, crash into the moon and be stuck there etc.
On top of all this, they claim a computer crash and that a manual landing was performed. It just doesn't add up.
Are people happy to believe that he could have any piloting experience of how the module would behave in those conditions? The test flight footage from earth is beyond stupid.
So in summary, too many unknowns, navigation difficult to achieve with the accuracy needed- how much ability had they to alter course, timing required to intercept moon in the manner they wanted to, with minimal computing ability.
I just don't see it happening, flawlessly

Moon is a big target. It not like they could miss it from space!

Nasa used a computer guided system, new for the time, to help them navigate. Yes it was 1969, but remember the technology they build was a new invention. They were upgrading unheard of technologies to help them to do this. There were many trail and error programs throughout the sixties and was not overnight thing to place a man on the moon. Vast amounts of money was spend on this project.

Astronauts were a pick of the best fighter pilots, they were well used to manual controlling a plane in flight and landing it safetly. They were not rookies , they could handle a tough situation.

namloc1980

bfa1509 wrote: »

You think I have the time to go through 150 posts, mostly paragraphs long and prove to you why they aren't real? Why would I focus on the smoke and mirrors of NASA propaganda when there are fundamental rules being broken in broad daylight that prove the whole thing to be a hoax?

Go on then - what are these fundamental rules being broken?

firemansam4

bfa1509 wrote:

You think I have the time to go through 150 posts, mostly paragraphs long and prove to you why they aren't real? Why would I focus on the smoke and mirrors of NASA propaganda when there are fundamental rules being broken in broad daylight that prove the whole thing to be a hoax?

So these fundamental rules being broken, is this just your opinion or have you any links to any experts who can prove this to be the case?

If someone like yourself can point this out then surely there must be a raft of evidence online to prove your theory's are correct?

SlowBlowin

For those on this thread who are open to reading posts and looking at technical aspects of the Apollo program, this is great: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bh_gP5aF3ys

Its the last remaining navigation computer left and they got it running...

skerry

SlowBlowin wrote: »

For those on this thread who are open to reading posts and looking at technical aspects of the Apollo program, this is great: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bh_gP5aF3ys

Its the last remaining navigation computer left and they got it running...

Don't be spreading your government propaganda on this thread, it won't be tolerated :P

Cheerful Spring2

Wibbs wrote: »

And as I pointed out earlier: Werner Von Braun and his nazi buddies were firing V2 rockets into the edge of space at supersonic speeds and doing it on the regular with over 3000 flights before the transistor was even dreamt of, never mind the integrated circuit. Unless you think that was faked?

Yep and reason i don't understand why people think its impossible for a rocket to leave Earth.

Soviets would have to have faked their space mission also. If was all fake this would have all come out after the fall of communism in Russia.

martingriff

bfa1509 wrote: »

You think I have the time to go through 150 posts, mostly paragraphs long and prove to you why they aren't real? Why would I focus on the smoke and mirrors of NASA propaganda when there are fundamental rules being broken in broad daylight that prove the whole thing to be a hoax?



You've had two engineers enter this thread, and rather than hearing what we had to say, you opted to drown us out with insults and undermine our qualifications. I already presented solid, unchallenged calculations (not based on emotion) as to why I believe it is impossible to maneuver the spacesuits in a vacuum.

What could have been a really interesting thread has been rendered a snorefest, swamped out by sheep clutching at straws.

you have been asked time and time what degree in engineering have you. As no university or IT gives a simple Degree of Engineering and what year. I have a degree in Engineering for Manufacturing Technology and there is no way I am cocky to say I know everything

firemansam4

bfa1509 wrote:

You think I have the time to go through 150 posts, mostly paragraphs long and prove to you why they aren't real? Why would I focus on the smoke and mirrors of NASA propaganda when there are fundamental rules being broken in broad daylight that prove the whole thing to be a hoax?

But we are not only talking about Nasa, there are several space agencies involved with the ISS. Are you saying several countries are in on this conspiracy spanning over 5 decades?

Dohnjoe

bfa1509 wrote: »

You've had two engineers enter this thread, and rather than hearing what we had to say, you opted to drown us out with insults and undermine our qualifications.

I've asked direct questions and raised points, none of which you've answered/addressed. I've asked for evidence, you haven't provided any, at all.

I don't know if you are an engineer, you made the claim but haven't answered that either. And if you are, you still aren't addressing any valid questions/points to your theories which means you simply appear to be using (abusing) your claim to being an engineer as an "appeal to authority" fallacy

There is no need to be an engineer to understand that manned space flight has happened. You don't need to be a doctor to understand that vaccines work.

If someone is going to deliberately evade questions/points, then playing the "victim" card is yet another emotional deflection.

Might you be trolling, perhaps, but if you are serious about your theory on the manned ISS and moon landings being hoaxes, then I'll repeat the below basic questions

1. If the ISS isn't manned, then explain the live feed and how many people/countries/governments are involved in your conspiracy (properly, with sound evidence)

2. Choose one of the 6 landings, and explain with sound evidence how it was faked (conspiracy youtube videos don't count)

skerry

firemansam4 wrote: »

But we are not only talking about Nasa, there are several space agencies involved with the ISS. Are you saying several countries are in on this conspiracy spanning over 5 decades?

That's exactly what he's saying. Fair play to NASA for brainwashing over 400k employees over the course of the space program and not having one single leak, they really are geniuses, just not the kind we thought

Cheerful Spring2

firemansam4 wrote: »

But we are not only talking about Nasa, there are several space agencies involved with the ISS. Are you saying several countries are in on this conspiracy spanning over 5 decades?

ISS was assembled in space and how could you do that without help from astronauts in the near vicinity?

The Astronauts also wear protective gear is not like they up there naked outside the station. The station was build to house astrounats from the conditions outside.

It like a house go inside your dry from rain. Go outside you be drenched by rain immediately.

Timberrrrrrrr

martingriff wrote: »

you have been asked time and time what degree in engineering have you. As no university or IT gives a simple Degree of Engineering and what year. I have a degree in Engineering for Manufacturing Technology and there is no way I am cocky to say I know everything

Probably got it in a kinder egg.

Overheal

mickdw wrote: »

No men lost, no crash landings, no suit failures, no health issues on return.

This is pretty ignorant of the history of the space program. Capsules blew up, rockets blew up. People died. And yes, the astronauts that came back from Apollo 13 (oh, which also was plagued with a slew of disasters) with health issues, including UTIs and kidney issues because they had to store urine in every random baggie and bottle they could find because they were told to stop dumping the pee to space: the heater for the valve consumed power. One of the guys, forget his name, basically just started wetting himself for a while and soaked in his own urine.

Overheal

mickdw wrote: »

I have not claimed to be an expert in Rocket Engineering but have an Engineering Degree and as such have a general understanding of Maths and Physics beyond what much of the population will have.

Which engineering discipline and from what university thanks

SlowBlowin

The OP started this by saying he wanted to discuss, and he wont. No relevant points are being won, conceded or discussed by the OP, even when there is no doubt they are wrong (laser reflector, etc). They have already stated that they cant be bothered to read all the posts, they are just a wind up.

I think its 100% obvious that she/he is just trolling and this thread is dysfunctional, although enjoyable as I have some great links to read/watch on vintage space. If it was not for all the great info this thread should be closed.

Overheal

Larbre34 wrote: »

As I heard it put yesterday by one of the great minds who has worked on space exploration, "having to defend our work to people who dont understand the science is frustrating and sad"

Buzz Aldrin said it all when some balloon of a hoax shill confronted him years ago and asked him to swear on the bible he had walked on the moon. He right hooked him to the head.

The 2nd greatest accomplishment in his career.

SlowBlowin

Overheal wrote: »

The 2nd greatest accomplishment in his career.

It was a fine punch from an old man, remember watching the video on YT, a real feel good moment when you saw how he was being abused.

mickdw

Overheal wrote: »

mickdw wrote: »

I have not claimed to be an expert in Rocket Engineering but have an Engineering Degree and as such have a general understanding of Maths and Physics beyond what much of the population will have.

Which engineering discipline and from what university thanks

Pm going your way now.

Overheal

bfa1509 wrote: »

You think I have the time to go through 150 posts, mostly paragraphs long and prove to you why they aren't real?

Ahem:

Your original post, you wrote,

"I can go at it with any opposers who are willing to spend the energy!!"

Why would I focus on the smoke and mirrors of NASA propaganda when there are fundamental rules being broken in broad daylight that prove the whole thing to be a hoax?

You haven't stated which fundamental rules.

You've had two engineers enter this thread, and rather than hearing what we had to say, you opted to drown us out with insults and undermine our qualifications.

We've had more than 2 engineers, but yes 2 CT people claiming to be 'engineers' but neither of whom feel confident enough to share what engineering they do. For the record, I am a Mechanical Engineer, B.Sc also working on my MS, from Clemson University. And you? You've gone from 'I have a background in engineering' to just simply referring to yourself as an engineer, and yet...

I already presented solid, unchallenged calculations (not based on emotion) as to why I believe it is impossible to maneuver the spacesuits in a vacuum.

Let's talk about this math, now that you've been given enough rope to hang yourself on:

"So you agree that there is 14.7 psi of pressure inside the space suit? (14.7 psi = 101,000 N/m^2, which would be the equivalent of 1.1 tonnes of mass resting on a 1m^2 piece of fabric) No human could ever maneuver inside a fabric under that much tension."

14.7 psi == 101 kN/m^2, sure,
101,000 N = 1.1 tonnes of mass..... eh, wrong, no. Just, no. This is basic physics math that nobody past their first semester would ever submit as work, in an actual engineering field. Basic unit conversion like this is taught to *every* engineer that goes through Clemson for instance, irrespective of the discipline you go into in your 2nd year and beyond.

Plus, you even did *that* part wrong: 101 kN != 1.1 of anything, it would be 1.01....

...if you had even gotten your orders of magnitude correct. But we will get back to that:

Second, let's edumacate you on the difference between newtons and mass. the Newton, I shouldn't need to tell any engineer, is the derived SI unit of force, while kilograms are the SI base unit of mass.

1 Newton = 1 kg*m/s^2.

Force [N] != Mass [kg].

Second point, the argument about 1.01 tonnes of mass sitting on a m^2 of fabric: where? In Earth gravity? The Moon? Jupiter? On Earth, 1.01 tonnes of mass (1.01 thousand kg or 1010 kg) would weigh only 9,908.1 Newtons. So let's revisit our orders of magnitude in reverse: 101,000 Newtons, on Earth, would be the weight of 10,295.6 kg of mass, or 10.26 metric tonnes, actually.

So, I reject your argument and laugh at your alleged background in engineering. Not to mention any actual Engineer practising in their profession would know not to meddle in fields they are not competent in: it is for example patently unethical for a Bioengineer to design a suspension bridge, or a Civil Engineer to feign expertise in organic chemistry. And, demonstrably, you lack the competence to argue matters of aerospace, or indeed, Physics 201.

Fortunately though, as I and others widely suspected,

What could have been a really interesting thread has been rendered a snorefest, swamped out by sheep clutching at straws.

bfa1509 wrote: »

Ha! This is what I love about you space fanboys. If you are so confident the moonlandings happened then why do you all sound so emotional and insult anyone who questions it?

The mask slipped off you rather quickly. Banned 3 months for trolling. Thanks for playing.

Overheal

SlowBlowin wrote: »

The OP started this by saying he wanted to discuss, and he wont. No relevant points are being won, conceded or discussed by the OP, even when there is no doubt they are wrong (laser reflector, etc). They have already stated that they cant be bothered to read all the posts, they are just a wind up.

I think its 100% obvious that she/he is just trolling and this thread is dysfunctional, although enjoyable as I have some great links to read/watch on vintage space. If it was not for all the great info this thread should be closed.

While the OP was indeed a windup artist there are some other folks having a somewhat more civil go at it, so I'll let it play on for the moment, as you said the debunking posts have been quite detailed and always educational to read through, like those documentary links a few posts ago.

Overheal

mickdw wrote: »

Pm going your way now.

Thank you, I accept that you have a degree in an engineering profession. I will note however it is not Aerospace related so bear this in mind if leaning on your background. Please report posts if they are derogatory about claiming or accusing you of not being an engineer, say, along with other reasons to report posts.

I would like to stress that Aerospace math is hard as balls, and very few of us engineers could very reasonably pretend to be experts in most of it, or even familiar with fair swaths of it.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

I would like to stress that Aerospace math is hard as balls, and very few of us engineers could very reasonably pretend to be experts in most of it, or even familiar with fair swaths of it.

It's not Rocket Science!... oh wait :pac:

SlowBlowin

mickdw wrote: »

I'm not convinced on the actual moon landing itself.
No issue with the space flight but I think going back 50 years, it was just too much.
Manually landing the capsule onto the moon, taking off and linking up with the space craft etc.

I found this video which shows just how much effort they put into lander training, and shows just what a cool guy Armstrong was.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNlZXso0-I4

Dr. Bre

They walked on the moon - that’s news to me

Dohnjoe

Dr. Bre wrote: »

They walked on the moon - that’s news to me

Dare I ask why

Westernyelp

Has the OP done a runner and Left poor Mick defending this nonsense?

What's the Thoughts in the Mars rovers and interplanetary probes? They imaginary too? Apologies if covered already

Dohnjoe

Westernyelp wrote: »

Has the OP done a runner and Left poor Mick defending this nonsense?

What's the Thoughts in the Mars rovers and interplanetary probes? They imaginary too? Apologies if covered already

I'm familiar with the moon landing hoaxes, but the "ISS is a fake" conspiracy is new to me, when I try to look it up, it mostly seems to be flat-earthers

I think the spiel here is manned space flight, emphasis on the manned part. Most hoaxers seem to be fine with satellites and probes, it's just man going into space they can't wrap their collective heads around

knucklehead6

mickdw wrote: »

I don't think the maths involved in an IT qualification would be at the highest level but even so, if I wanted to employ someone to carry out a complex task, I'd hire you before the majority of the random population.
To take a simple example, prior to my Engineering Degree, I was 1 of 2 who took higher maths in a class of 60 at secondary school. That simple fact in itself strongly suggests that I would mathematically be ahead of a large portion of the population.

You must’ve been to a very strange school. Only 2 students took higher level maths??

We had a year group about the same size and from memory there was 18 of us.

M5

Still waiting to hear how OP explains me seeing the ISS on several occasions with a scope. NB, Not a plane (Have actually seen it with Soyuz an Dragon docking and docked, that level of detail is possible with a tracking scope, I used a celestron Nexstar 11)

And, how as part of Astrophysics Masters a friend of mine has used equipment at Haute-Provence Observatory completed experiment on at least one of the moon based retro reflectors? The reflector was found at the location it was supposed to be in and the readings were as expected.

This was asked in post number 2 and still hasn't been addressed other than "that's impossible", or some guff about perpendicularity being required.