Ichinobu

And you are going to tell me this POS flew back to the CM





Mind you these are their official photos

sigma pi

iTrader: (6)

masking tape is strong like that haha


hey did you get my text messages?

Ichinobu

Everytime I look at that POS I get mad. I know i'm dumb but don't insult my intelligence even more.


Look at the little white wire thing in the center, It looks like a pipe cleaner made into a valve. ahhhhh!!!

samurai

iTrader: (1)

WRONG. Kapton tape. Masking tape will outgas and deteriorate. It (kapton) is the duct tape of the aerospace/satellite industry. heheheh

And yes, it will look like crap because it is MLI (Multi Layer Insulation). It is not as easy to install as you think. Anything greater than 5 layer MLI is the *****iest material to work with. The MLI nowadays looks better since we have better attachment methods (velcro) better cutting methods and the outer black surface is not painted on. We also have aluminum ground straps covered by the MLI instead of having the Aluminum tape running outside.

As for the moon, I've heard so many arguments for and against i'm just going to leave it for you guys to discuss.

Sorry.. Had to be an aerospace **** here.

sigma pi

iTrader: (6)

no no you mother ****er you stepped both feet in it


with your knowledge about space stuff and eng. degree


did that make it to the moon and back?>

samurai

iTrader: (1)

If you want my personal opinion? Yes, I believe it did.

Ichinobu

One has to believe in something, just don't let it be this.

The structure itself is questionable, the bell housing on the exhaust it goes on.

Just look at the rover and how there is no track leading to it. It was placed there and raked. The foot prints don't lead anywhere.

samurai

iTrader: (1)

I'll definitely answer the "questionable structure" part.

You will be quite amazed as to what "passes" as spaceworthy. On earth, we design everything to look and be BEEFY if it breaks. Well if things don't look beefy enough, why not use a thicker piece of sheet metal or a bigger diameter bolt instead of flimsy tinfoil looking things? Right? Ridiculous safety factors of maybe 5 or 6? This is NOT a car. To be spaceworthy, you have to save weight where ever you can. Things that look sooo flimsy (such as the thruster shield you see there and it is not an "exhaust") work amazingly well in space. Why drag a thicker shield or panels into space when you can save weight? The less weight from the craft means more payload and that is where the money is made. For satellites, its about transponders and antennas while with the manned missions, its all about the experiments and work needed to be done on satellites such as chandra, hubble, etc. Also, those shields are usually made of titanium and sometimes covered with thicker MLI compared to what you see on the struts or other coverings such as (fiber)glass cloth or paint so that the sunlight won't reflect into something else. If you left a bare metal shield laying outside the thermal radiation emitting from that would be crazy since it would technically be reflecting the unfiltered rays of the sun somewhere else. All e(missivity) and no alpha (apsorbtivity) makes for crappy thermal design unless you were designing a thermal radiator to dissipate heat and that would go into OSRs (optical solar reflectors) nowadays. We do have bare metal thruster shields, but the view factor (another heat transfer term) is usually such that it won't see anything else on the spacecraft.

I'm a structural engineer myself and we use safety factors less than that of civil structures or cars for manned missions and that is conservative. The crucial balance between weight and structural integrity is where we earn the big bucks. It can shake and rattle (hopefully not roll) when it goes into space, but the ride to escape earth's grav pull lasts a good 10-15min or so. Not long enough to shake parts loose and we design it as such. Sit through a vibration test and see what they do. They plan on a lot of Gs for more time, but the vibration frequency is so huge, it won't shake anything loose. (note that we do have a minimum frequency requirement on ALL spacecraft) If it does or if something breaks, the structure is analyzed and redone. You think we get nervous before a dynamics test? You bet.

As for the no tracks leading to the vehicle, wouldn't you think the astronauts could lift the vehicle up and place it where they wanted since they were in a gravitational environment a small fraction of the earth's gravity? From what I hear from the grey hairs at the company, they had to pick up the rover to position it such that they can drive off from the LM. The rover was packed folded as part of the whole module and was unfolded when the astronauts did their EVA. But that could understandably be also indentified by others as a prop that was put into place. hmmm... Thats a big question mark more than it being a clear marker to a conspiracy or other wise.

The only way to find out and to prove once and for all is to actually go to the moon again.

my $0.02 and a bit more..

Ichinobu

I smile,

So, they are suggesting that it was carrier there. Where are the foot print that reflects the movement. Remember that they had to bunny hop around carring the rover.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...33-20342HR.jpg

Everybody carrier that thing around. No tracks again

samurai

iTrader: (1)

See my attachment. Look at the ground close to the rover. You can see the footprints with the naked eye.

Apparently, the initial deployment (even to my surprise) is automatic. The positioning by astronauts was done once the rover was on the ground.

-From Wikipedia


actually there are theories from other ppl that say that the footprints that are shown are too good to be real. some of the footprints are inconsistent (6 bars for the shoes compared to 8). These accusations are from crackpot "scientists" who never went through the actual design and engineering done to make the LM and drew their own conclusions from print, article, and the meager engineering done years prior to the completion of the LM.

Bill Kaysing for example, who is the biggest critic never was an engineer, tho he was the first person who said that the moon landing was impossible.

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Kaysing.htm

you can draw your own conclusions from the pictures like everybody has, but as an engineer that has seen the shuttle, been involved in over 20 satellites, and a damn laser on an airplane, i believe that they did it. A lot of the basic technologies are still in use today on current satellites and space vehicles tho the engineering has advanced a lot since then.

samurai

iTrader: (1)

And for the record, it doesn't have to be pretty to fly. Things can look like a "POS" as you say in the second photo you img'ed. Function before form is paramount in aerospace. You can make the initial sketches to look pretty, but after engineers get involved and the science is applied, it usually gets uglier. I know this also from experience. The only plane that retained its beauty from conception to final production was the beech starship. Even then, it was late, over priced, and had ugly looking vortex generators on the upper surface of the wing. They found out late in the game that the air over the wing separated at too low of an angle of attack and therefore stalled the wing losing lift.

sorry to take over the moon pics thread. I'll try to make up for it with pics of the Z instead. hehehe

Ichinobu

It's a long one

It is very difficult to refute if landing based on theories, technology, resources and ability of that era. The only information a layman may go on is the information presented by NASA during that Apollo mission. The moon mission was a dream and a goal to prove to the world the capabilities of the Unites States. Those missions did instill a sense of pride to every American at that time. Did it serve its purpose? Yes it did, but the gating question is Did they really do it? I for one think not.

We only have recorded data, pictures and testimonies documented during the missions. I for one believed that it was true until a few years ago. I read an article where it stated that Armstrong does not give interviews concerning the missions. I found it hard to believe that he achieved and feat that very few people in this world could ever do. The first thing that came to mind is “Why wouldn’t you talk about it and what are you hiding.”

So off to the NASA archive I went. When I saw the pictures of the LM I about fell over. It was like looking at pictures of Adam West’s Batmobile. It is funny how the lack of knowledge infers perception. Seeing what looked like the old yellow scotch tape that I use to see on my Christmas presents used on the LM was unreal for me. Then the gaps in the panel were so ridiculous. It was as if kids threw it together for a school float. Reflecting back we had no way to scrutinize the photos like we can today. Zooming in on the images and validation functionality based on 40 years of technological knowledge and growth really discredits the missions.

Today the average kid understands digital imaging, satellite delay and everything in between compared to children of the 60s’. Taking my basic knowledge of today and validating what I saw of the missions I find it hard to believe that we were able to go to the moon and back based on the technology of the time.

How does one disprove it?

It is very difficult to disprove theory and technology from a layman position but it is not difficult to prove or disprove actions based on documented events and physical evidence provided by the governing agency. Disproving that someone drove to New York can be difficult evaluating the pictures they brought back from their trip isn’t. Either they were there and took the pictures or they staged the event and took pictures.

As I browsed the Apollo gallery I noticed a lot of the pictures of the Lunar Rover appeared to be staged. There were no tire tracks in front of or behind the wheels of the rover. How could that be? Especially the final parking space of the LR.

So, let’s start at the beginning. Apollo 11.

Most anomalies are refuted by the vacuum defense. There is no floating dust due to the vacuum environment. Here are three question and the theories that explains these anomalies.

1. Floating Dust
Why doesn't the dust stay in the air longer than in earth? Surely with the less gravity it would float around for ages?

This is one of the most common reasons for confusion and claims of hoaxery. Let's get straight two basic facts;

Dust does not float in a vacuum. The only reason it 'floats' on Earth is because of the air that surrounds it. In a vacuum dust behaves exactly like any other object. You throw it up and it will then fall. It is no different from what a rock would do. Rocks do not float or billow around nor does the dust, even if it is lighter.
Because there is no air, dust falls quicker on the moon than on Earth. This may seem strange, as the Moon's gravity is much less. But the lack of an atmosphere is far more significant to the dust. But it still falls slower than you'd expect a rock to on Earth.
These two facts make almost dead certain proof of a lunar landing. There is absolutely nowhere on Earth that you could make dust behave in this, to us, peculiar way. If you were to create a vacuum on Earth, the dust would fall very quickly, just as we are used to a rock doing. But here is evidence of dust behaving like it's in a vacuum and in low gravity. Without modern computer movie graphics there is no way this could be faked on Earth.

2. Dust On Lander
Pictures show the feet of the lander have no dust on them. Why is this?

Well think for a moment; how could the dust be above the lander feet to settle on it? Any blast from the lander's rocket would throw the dust down and to the side,very little would land on the feet. There is no air disturbance for the dust to billow around in. Throw the dust to the side and it will go that way, it won't come back to land on the feet.

(Dust started showing up on the LM pads after Apollo 14)

3. Footprints
Why does the dust clump together like wet sand? Everybody's seen the pictures of the astronauts' footprints, but should the dust have left any trace of the footprints? Wouldn't they have disappeared like footprints in dry sand dunes?


The lunar dust is not anything like sand. The particles are smaller and much more irregular. Sand on Earth is the result of weathering and has been rounded and smoothed by wind, water and oxidation, but dust on the moon are minuscule shards of broken rock from asteroid collisions. Consequently their surface at a molecular level is a jagged mass that won't get smoothed off and don't have any weathering to smooth them off. This means that when compressed, say by a boot, the dust particles will grip with each other very readily, using and retain the shape. All without any water.

Taking the facts from these three questions we can define the environment and walk around on the moon and see if we can validate what is said with what we see.

This is a quote from the Apollo 11 Mission Report NASA. Page 4-9 paragraph 4 line 3.

Surface obscuration caused by blowing dust was apparent at 100 feet and became increasing severe as the altitude decreased. Although visual determination of horizontal velocity, attitude, and altitude rate were degraded, cues for these variables were adequate for landing. Landing conditions are estimated to have been 1 or 2 ft/sec left, 0 ft/sec forward, and 1 ft/sec down; no evidence of vehicle instability at landing was observed.

The key factor here is that at 100ft the moons surface was being disrupted. The term blowing dust was used but we know that there is no air on the moon therefore we will just assume that it is a description of an event. Note that a lot of dust was being displaced. The disruption started at 100 feet above the ground and got progressively worst.

I do not believe that a landing occurred and these pictures were staged. This fact discredits the technology and the ability to land on the moon in 1969 in my eyes.

There has been considerable discussion concerning the contract probe and its positioning. The positioning of impact, listing and landing has all been debated but I noticed something else. The dirt around this area was usually smoothly packed.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...-40-5918HR.jpg
Zoom in on the area in front of the pad. The probe in entrenched under the dust. My problem is how the fine dust still remains in place and so smoothly compressed if the turbulence was to the point that visibility was degraded after 100ft.

Let’s look at this area from another angle.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...-40-5870HR.jpg

Notice how the dirt on this side of the probe is also smooth. The washout in the picture of the dust indicates smoothness that is equal to the far side. This means that the area in question at one time was completely smooth.

We see that the center of the area in question is disrupted. Now we need to identify at what point would the disruption occur? Did it happen upon landing or after landing.

The probe is the first piece of the LM to make contact with the ground on the moon, so we should see dirt, probe and then pad. This is what the photo depicts but how did that small area of smooth packing occur.

The smooth compacted area of moon dust is split in two by the contact probe. The center area is a raised mounts of dust that has broken chunks of smooth dust. How can we explain this?

Let’s look at another photo.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...-40-5903HR.jpg

This is perhaps the most renown photo of all time and it probably the most revealing one concerning the probe.

Zoom in on the probe and notice how the dust is concaved around the probe. The landing could not have buried the probe in this manner but the prior question still remains unanswered. When and how did the dust become so smooth and compacted?

If the probe caused the disruption, then the area was smooth before the landing. Even so the decent would have disrupted the pattern of smoothness. Therefore the formation of the dust pattern had to happen after the engines were shut off but why and how?

There is no reason for the astronauts to make a formation of packed dust in that area after landing. The other two probes had different effect during the landing. One looked to be driven into the ground and pointing up and the other was angle away from the LM. Still the question is What could produce such a pattern.

The metallic wrapping on the pad is the closest item in the proximity. A unwrapped pad with it's wrapping laid on the dust would possible leave such a pattern. This would also answer why the landing pads are so clean. There should have been some residue on the metallic wrapping upon landing.

Now this starts the premise of staging. If the LM was staged and placed on the wrapping then this could answer how the pattern was formed on the dust. This theory would also provide the answer and sequence of events concerning the probe. A manner in which a piece of the probe could have been push into the dirt under the pad and created the concaved buried image we saw above.

It is my opinion that these photos reflect the sequence of events concerning the contact probe and the dirt formation around it. The images does not reflect a chaotic disturbance of moon dust as stated in the mission report. The probe could not have created the surroundings as shown in the images.

Although these are minute point they reveal a lot. Simular to watching a western and seeing a jet stream cloud in the sky.

In looking at these photos I also noted that the dirt appears to have moister in it. The discoloration of the dirt shows signs of moisture which adds to the doubt.

Looking at these photos and the photos of the rover without tire tracks leading to or from it makes me to believe the missions were staged. Although many will continue to disagree with the hoax theory I think some of the basic facts prove other wise.

Personally, I believe that this hoax added value to the country during that era. It added a since of pride and patriotism to the people and that was good but this is a new ear and we are suppose to be smarter.

As for goverment hoaxes they have been going on for years and will continue.
Remember the Weapons of Mass Destruction.

ipozestu

iTrader: (18)

WOW!!! You have a lot of time on your hands. Is Elvis still alive?

JohnQGearhead

iTrader: (3)

What did the dust do when you were on the moon? .......oh, you have never been to the moon?

Ichinobu

I know it was 106 degrees today and I wasn't about to go anywhere so I thought I would write my thesis.

Sorry to say the King is really dead.

nor has anyone else.


After my thesis is turned in I will be known as

the janitor Ph.D