Conspiracies

Quote from: legion on May 19, 2015, 10:50:04 PM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on May 19, 2015, 09:41:50 PM

Quote from: legion on May 19, 2015, 12:13:19 PM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on May 19, 2015, 10:47:47 AM

Space craft engineers do a lot of communicating with each other.  They are professional engineers so they know what they are doing.  They use the same engineering process used by air draft engineers and every time you ride in an airplane you bet your life that they did a good job.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. This is how it works:

1. A company wants a product manufacturing.

2. If the company can't manufacture some/all the parts themselves, a supplier(s) will be asked to quote to manufacture any number of assemblies or subassemblies or even the entire product. Engineering drawings will be provided listing all relevant information, such as; materials, dimensions, tolerances, inspection and/or test criteria.

3. The supplier will give a quote to complete the above work. Various accreditations will usually needed to be provided by the supplier as well.

4. If the customer is happy with the quote and all other relevant documentation, an order is placed.

And after all the orders were placed, There Was Much Rejoicing. All the subassemblies were delivered on-time and in-spec, there were no anomalies, integration problems, or design changes, ever. And everyone lived Happily Ever After. The End.

You describe the ideal project fairy tale. That's the way it's supposed to work, and often it does - in a mature industry. This works and is well compartmentalized when everything is perfectly specified, no suppliers ever have to talk to others, and you never have to call in groups of specialists from different areas to solve a particular problem or to design and deliver a complex piece of gear on a short schedule, whose complex piece of gear has to interface correctly with some other group's complex piece of gear which was also designed and delivered on a short schedule.

Designing and building the Saturn V couldn't be any different than designing and building the next-generation refrigerator, washing machine, or *gasp* remote-control toaster (there will even be an app for toast the way you like it using your phone or tablet!) It's just engineering, after all. Design the systems, order the pieces, done.

Right.

Why have you decided to travel back in time by fifty years? I thought that as of now, the space industry was mature. That's what my post was about.

Are you saying the Saturn V was real, and worked, but modern appliances rockets and spacecraft can be faked because nobody talks to anyone else?

You are deliberately avoiding the question. You wrote this:

You describe the ideal project fairy tale. That's the way it's supposed to work, and often it does - in a mature industry.

So, is the space industry mature or not? If it is, it should work as I've described.

So, is the space industry mature or not? If it is, it should work as I've described.

The aerospace industry is mature enough where NASA doesn't design most of the rocket boosters that they use.  NASA puts out specs for what they need and SpaceX, ULA or whoever designs their own systems based on those specs.  This is why the Falcon 9 is very different from an Atlas 5, yet they both do pretty much the same thing.

Compartmentalisation and the needs to know basis. Who and how many need to know the final outcome?
Answer: very few. Very few indeed.

TPTB: ok let's have a rocket built that is large enough to look like it goes into space. Make up the plans for it and have contractors and fabricators build all the parts required.
We can also set up some bogus companies that can work on the stuff that we deem top secret. We shall call these companies all kinds of names that appear to look legitimate, when all they are, are Hollywood prop designers.
We can then mock up a TV show for the lift off of this thing and inbetween it all we can be making a full size mock up ready for the museum so people believe we made lots of real one's that went to space.

The beauty of it all is that all the little contractors are simply building little mock up parts that they believe are part of a space rocket. Joe Bloggs can spend weeks polishing a small injection part that he believes is part of the engine and yet could be part of the mock up engine that is about as useful as a chocolate fireguard, yet easy on the museum goer's eye.

What about the know it all's? the one's that suspect that all is not what it seems?
Make your own mind up about the few that would have their heads screwed on or the few that decide they have scruples and a conscience, so far in. Where do you run to. Who do you go to who will listen to your plight/dilemma on what you are part of?

Media? TV?....internet? phone a friend?

Picture the scene.

I'm Jim Bloggs (no relation to Joe) and I've seen things that's going on with this rocket that is not genuine. It's bogus and cannot launch.
Joe Launch: well Jim, you sure don't know your rockets, do you. I man, you try to steal valuable parts to sell on and get caught and try to tell everyone that your expertise on rocketry is superior.

OR

Joe Launch: Unfortunately we had a man arrested today for trying to sell secrets of the rocket design to outside interest. Jim Bloggs was a valued member of the team but decided to cash in.


You see, what can you do?
There's not a hope in hell that people are going to talk and get anywhere. Plenty may try and these are the one's you probably see splashed all over the tabloids.

Trainee astronaut goes on wrecking spree after break up.
OR
Employee tries to blow up facility with a home made Roman sandal bomb.
The list is endless to be fair. It's possible that's all I'm saying.

No one needs to jumnp in to say it's not. Don't waste your time bothering to say that as you're not worth a carrot to me.

Compartmentalisation and the needs to know basis.

tl&dr

The usual line unthinkingly parroted out by unoriginal conspiracy theorists who have literally no practical knowledge of engineering (or any other) projects.

You've seen other people use this line, so you use it yourself.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 20, 2015, 10:53:46 AM

Compartmentalisation and the needs to know basis.

tl&dr

The usual line unthinkingly parroted out by unoriginal conspiracy theorists who have literally no practical knowledge of engineering (or any other) projects.

You've seen other people use this line, so you use it yourself.

are you engineer ?

Quote from: legion on May 20, 2015, 09:28:29 AM

So, is the space industry mature or not? If it is, it should work as I've described.

The aerospace industry is mature enough where NASA doesn't design most of the rocket boosters that they use.  NASA puts out specs for what they need and SpaceX, ULA or whoever designs their own systems based on those specs.  This is why the Falcon 9 is very different from an Atlas 5, yet they both do pretty much the same thing.

Are you sure? The following concerns come to mind:

1. Who owns the intellectual property on those designs?

2. Don't the various space agencies have their own 'space' engineers who can produce engineering drawings to their specs? That's how it's worked at every aerospace, power generation, rail, and general machining/fabrication company I've worked in, or been involved with. The only exceptions would be designing and manufacturing something for someone who doesn't have a clue about how to achieve what they want. Those occurrences are rare, though.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on May 20, 2015, 09:00:46 AM

Quote from: legion on May 19, 2015, 10:50:04 PM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on May 19, 2015, 09:41:50 PM

Designing and building the Saturn V couldn't be any different than designing and building the next-generation refrigerator, washing machine, or *gasp* remote-control toaster (there will even be an app for toast the way you like it using your phone or tablet!) It's just engineering, after all. Design the systems, order the pieces, done.

Right.

Why have you decided to travel back in time by fifty years? I thought that as of now, the space industry was mature. That's what my post was about.

Are you saying the Saturn V was real, and worked, but modern appliances rockets and spacecraft can be faked because nobody talks to anyone else?

You are deliberately avoiding the question. You wrote this:

Quote

You describe the ideal project fairy tale. That's the way it's supposed to work, and often it does - in a mature industry.

So, is the space industry mature or not? If it is, it should work as I've described.

Let's review how we got here, shall we? This may exceed your attention span, legion. I hope not.

Topic: Conspiracies

Nested quotes in this first quote serialized to make reading them easier. To see the original formatting, follow the first link below.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on May 18, 2015, 11:07:27 PM

If you were one of the thousands of people at Boeing who built the first stage of the Saturn V then you would have to be in on it.  There is even a company in Utah (which is where I live) which made (among other things) the solid rocket boosters for the Space Shuttle.  Anyone who worked on or around the solid rocket boosters would have to be in on the conspiracy.  A simple Goigle search would reveal some if the tens of thousands of private contractors who work for NASA to build rocket parts and stuff.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on May 18, 2015, 11:09:46 PM

So, a guy who helps 25 other people build a heat shield or something of the like must be in on it, along with those 25 others?
I don't follow the logic.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on May 19, 2015, 08:41:58 AM

They would have to be in on it if NASA just builds mock up rockets for show.  It is possible that they could build real rockets and crash them somewhere, but that would cost the same as regular soace travel.  If you didn't actually fly rockets then you would have to fake terabytes of data per year and you still would have to pay off the people who prepare the rocket for launch and provide ground support for the rocket in mission control.  NASA has no motivation to fake space travel because it's more expensive and nobody will make any money.

So you think that these people are all in one room, making all the parts. "Hey Ted, I've finished the 2nd fin!", "Great Bill! I'll have Sal throw it on."
And also that they're all there when the supposed rocket is allegedly launched?

Space craft engineers do a lot of communicating with each other.  They are professional engineers so they know what they are doing.  They use the same engineering process used by air draft engineers and every time you ride in an airplane you bet your life that they did a good job.

Maybe you never knew that mikeman was specifically talking about the Saturn V when you just jumped in with:

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. This is how it works:

1. A company wants a product manufacturing.

2. If the company can't manufacture some/all the parts themselves, a supplier(s) will be asked to quote to manufacture any number of assemblies or subassemblies or even the entire product. Engineering drawings will be provided listing all relevant information, such as; materials, dimensions, tolerances, inspection and/or test criteria.

3. The supplier will give a quote to complete the above work. Various accreditations will usually needed to be provided by the supplier as well.

4. If the customer is happy with the quote and all other relevant documentation, an order is placed.

So, it may be an idea for you to sit the rest of this thread out, seeing as you have no idea what you are talking about.

And after all the orders were placed, There Was Much Rejoicing. All the subassemblies were delivered on-time and in-spec, there were no anomalies, integration problems, or design changes, ever. And everyone lived Happily Ever After. The End.

You describe the ideal project fairy tale. That's the way it's supposed to work, and often it does - in a mature industry. This works and is well compartmentalized when everything is perfectly specified, no suppliers ever have to talk to others, and you never have to call in groups of specialists from different areas to solve a particular problem or to design and deliver a complex piece of gear on a short schedule, whose complex piece of gear has to interface correctly with some other group's complex piece of gear which was also designed and delivered on a short schedule.

Designing and building the Saturn V couldn't be any different than designing and building the next-generation refrigerator, washing machine, or *gasp* remote-control toaster (there will even be an app for toast the way you like it using your phone or tablet!) It's just engineering, after all. Design the systems, order the pieces, done.

Right.

Which got the very cogent reply from you:

Why have you decided to travel back in time by fifty years? I thought that as of now, the space industry was mature. That's what my post was about.

Dude! That may be what you thought your post was about. We were talking about building the Saturn V when you butted in on the conversation, so don't get huffy.

Are you saying the Saturn V was real, and worked, but modern appliances rockets and spacecraft can be faked because nobody talks to anyone else?

You avoid answering this by trying to turn the topic, as you often do. Or did you just not follow the conversation and really think you were making a relevant comment? Either seem equally plausible.

You are deliberately avoiding the question. You wrote this:

Quote

You describe the ideal project fairy tale. That's the way it's supposed to work, and often it does - in a mature industry.

So, is the space industry mature or not? If it is, it should work as I've described.

OK. My answer is no. The space industry was anything but mature when the Saturn V was designed and built. This is the topic under discussion; you just popped in with your description of "how things work", ideally, now.

Is the space industry mature now? It's certainly more mature now than it was at the time of the Saturn V. No question about that. Truly mature? Parts of it are, but, overall, in my opinion, no. You and others may disagree.

I answered your question. Now, how about answering mine. I'll repeat it to make it as easy as possible.

Are you saying the Saturn V was real, and worked, but modern rockets and spacecraft can be faked because nobody talks to anyone else?

Well?

...snip...

Are you saying the Saturn V was real, and worked, but modern rockets and spacecraft can be faked because nobody talks to anyone else?

Well?

Nope, I'm saying they are all faked.

Yes, legion; you are correct.

None of NASA's 'space vehicles' are even remotely physically possible.

As designed, what they most resemble are giant bombs; so it's a good thing they didn't exist, isn't it?

& as for the 'conspiracy' behind it; with so many idiots around, hiding it is child's play.

Really; they play you all like fiddles.

& it's amusing to watch.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on May 20, 2015, 04:53:24 PM

...snip...

Are you saying the Saturn V was real, and worked, but modern rockets and spacecraft can be faked because nobody talks to anyone else?

Well?

Nope, I'm saying they are all faked.

Are you saying the Saturn V was the product of a mature industry at the time it was designed and built?

No, Alpha2omega; he is saying it was faked.

What is it with you lot & reading comprehension issues?

You only have to look at the supposed lunar rovers to see how absurd some of these stories are. It's no wonder people see conspiracies.

For anyone interested, go and look up owners manual for the lunar roving vehicle. 
You see, NASA or whichever bozo worked on putting the booklet together, must have tested the rover batteries out in the desert because the death of the batteries are at 115 degrees farenheit.
The moon in the shade or in direct sun is 250 plus or 250 minus isn't it?

1970's batteries. Hmmm. I mean we have batteries today that fail to play the game with your car when the temperature is minus frigging 5.
Those moon buggies could scoot about for miles on that terrain wthout a care in the world, in temperatures like this, we are told. Hahahahaha.

You only have to look at the supposed lunar rovers to see how absurd some of these stories are. It's no wonder people see conspiracies.

For anyone interested, go and look up owners manual for the lunar roving vehicle. 
You see, NASA or whichever bozo worked on putting the booklet together, must have tested the rover batteries out in the desert because the death of the batteries are at 115 degrees farenheit.
The moon in the shade or in direct sun is 250 plus or 250 minus isn't it?

No. This is a common misconception. Look up apollo thermal management.

<Rest of post moot.>

Sceptimatic: have you checked out the alleged 'wheel-hub' electric motors of the lunar rover too?

They're especially silly; supposedly the motor & reduction gear all fitted into a space the size of a Campbell's Soup can!

I don't want to get into the utter implausibility & infeasibility of NASA's 'space vehicles' though; anyone with the slightest technical or aerodynamic knowledge can see they are a joke.

But the dingbats here will just argue the point forever; & that's no fun.

Best to just strike at the roots of the whole mess, i.e. the preposterous notion that rockets will work in a vacuum.

More & more people are waking up to the fact that NASA's explanation for how rockets work is a con-trick; the word is spreading & can't be stopped no matter how much damage-control they attempt...

Which is LOL!!!

Brilliant strategy, declaring that lunar vehicles don't work. Cars don't work. I said it so it's true. Planes too. You're a fool to believe in them.

Sceptimatic: have you checked out the alleged 'wheel-hub' electric motors of the lunar rover too?

They're especially silly; supposedly the motor & reduction gear all fitted into a space the size of a Campbell's Soup can!

I don't want to get into the utter implausibility & infeasibility of NASA's 'space vehicles' though; anyone with the slightest technical or aerodynamic knowledge can see they are a joke.

But the dingbats here will just argue the point forever; & that's no fun.

Best to just strike at the roots of the whole mess, i.e. the preposterous notion that rockets will work in a vacuum.

More & more people are waking up to the fact that NASA's explanation for how rockets work is a con-trick; the word is spreading & can't be stopped no matter how much damage-control they attempt...

Which is LOL!!!

Yeah, the motors. Hahahaha. I remember mentioning them before, but you're right; these people will simply argue for the sake of it to keep up a lie or a fantasy.

You only have to look at the supposed lunar rovers to see how absurd some of these stories are. It's no wonder people see conspiracies.

For anyone interested, go and look up owners manual for the lunar roving vehicle. 
You see, NASA or whichever bozo worked on putting the booklet together, must have tested the rover batteries out in the desert because the death of the batteries are at 115 degrees farenheit.
The moon in the shade or in direct sun is 250 plus or 250 minus isn't it?

1970's batteries. Hmmm. I mean we have batteries today that fail to play the game with your car when the temperature is minus frigging 5.
Those moon buggies could scoot about for miles on that terrain wthout a care in the world, in temperatures like this, we are told. Hahahahaha.

Might want to check the difference between ambient air temperature and surface temperature. Also perhaps some basic thermodynamics and heat transfer couldn't go amiss.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 22, 2015, 08:21:53 AM

You only have to look at the supposed lunar rovers to see how absurd some of these stories are. It's no wonder people see conspiracies.

For anyone interested, go and look up owners manual for the lunar roving vehicle. 
You see, NASA or whichever bozo worked on putting the booklet together, must have tested the rover batteries out in the desert because the death of the batteries are at 115 degrees farenheit.
The moon in the shade or in direct sun is 250 plus or 250 minus isn't it?

1970's batteries. Hmmm. I mean we have batteries today that fail to play the game with your car when the temperature is minus frigging 5.
Those moon buggies could scoot about for miles on that terrain wthout a care in the world, in temperatures like this, we are told. Hahahahaha.

Might want to check the difference between ambient air temperature and surface temperature. Also perhaps some basic thermodynamics and heat transfer couldn't go amiss.

You might want to check out vacuum, as we are told the moon is in.

Quote from: Mainframes on May 22, 2015, 10:02:38 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 22, 2015, 08:21:53 AM

You only have to look at the supposed lunar rovers to see how absurd some of these stories are. It's no wonder people see conspiracies.

For anyone interested, go and look up owners manual for the lunar roving vehicle. 
You see, NASA or whichever bozo worked on putting the booklet together, must have tested the rover batteries out in the desert because the death of the batteries are at 115 degrees farenheit.
The moon in the shade or in direct sun is 250 plus or 250 minus isn't it?

1970's batteries. Hmmm. I mean we have batteries today that fail to play the game with your car when the temperature is minus frigging 5.
Those moon buggies could scoot about for miles on that terrain wthout a care in the world, in temperatures like this, we are told. Hahahahaha.

Might want to check the difference between ambient air temperature and surface temperature. Also perhaps some basic thermodynamics and heat transfer couldn't go amiss.

You might want to check out vacuum, as we are told the moon is in.

That's his point...

Why don't you take us through precisely why the battery couldn't operate under these conditions.  Rather than your usual mindless "Ha, ha it's all old fashioned and don't look like an iphone it could never work" rubbish.

Brilliant strategy, declaring that lunar vehicles don't work. Cars don't work. I said it so it's true. Planes too. You're a fool to believe in them.

Which is the odd one out? I'll give you a clue; it's got 'lunar' in the name.

Why is the lunar one the odd one out? That's a challenge for you techros.

Good luck.

p.s. pitiful strawman.

LOL!

Nice one. legion.

NASA = FAIL!!!

The aerodynamics of the space shuttle alone are a hoot; catastrophic transonic buffeting, anyone?

Good thing it has ejector seats... Or does it?

Well, the hatches are still there... which is a BIG CLUE!

Quote from: markjo on May 20, 2015, 10:15:37 AM

Quote from: legion on May 20, 2015, 09:28:29 AM

So, is the space industry mature or not? If it is, it should work as I've described.

The aerospace industry is mature enough where NASA doesn't design most of the rocket boosters that they use.  NASA puts out specs for what they need and SpaceX, ULA or whoever designs their own systems based on those specs.  This is why the Falcon 9 is very different from an Atlas 5, yet they both do pretty much the same thing.

Are you sure? The following concerns come to mind:

1. Who owns the intellectual property on those designs?

Since SpaceX designed their own boosters, capsules and engines, I think that it would be safe to say that they own the intellectual property rights to those designs.

2. Don't the various space agencies have their own 'space' engineers who can produce engineering drawings to their specs? That's how it's worked at every aerospace, power generation, rail, and general machining/fabrication company I've worked in, or been involved with. The only exceptions would be designing and manufacturing something for someone who doesn't have a clue about how to achieve what they want. Those occurrences are rare, though.

Yes, NASA does quite a lot of general R&D and are involved with contractors working on products such as Orion and SLS, but SpaceX, ULA and others do a lot of their own research and design for their commercial products, such as Dragon, Falcon, Atlas 5, Vulcan, CST-100, etc.  Essentially, NASA is trying to save money by farming out most of the launch vehicles that they use.

Markjo: you do like to spam out 'space-facts'.

Yet you don't like to actually EXPLAIN anything, ever...

Do you work for NASA?

Or JPL?

Or any other 'space consultant'?

Be honest here, for once.

Also, you said you were done with talking to me; yet here you are...

A bit of consistency would be nice.

Markjo: you do like to spam out 'space-facts'.

Yet you don't like to actually EXPLAIN anything, ever...

Do you work for NASA?

Or JPL?

Or any other 'space consultant'?

Be honest here, for once.

Also, you said you were done with talking to me; yet here you are...

A bit of consistency would be nice.

Quote one time where a round earther has been inconsistent.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on May 17, 2015, 11:41:35 PM

abaaaabbbb63 is right, and the numbers I was using were from the time of the Apollo missions.  The skepticism around the Apollo missions are not caused by whistle blowers, they originated with people who thought they saw proof that the Moon landings were faked in the footage taken from the Moon.  These "proofs" that the Moon landings are fake are all very easy to debunk with a bit of spacial reasoning and physics research.

I still think that there would have to be well over 1,000,000 people in on the conspiracy in order to fake space travel, mostly because of the dozens of space agencies around the world and the 40,000+ private contractors who regularly work for NASA.  In WWII, Adalf Hitler used indoctrination, bribes, and threats to try to keep people silent and yet there were still whistle blowers.  Why do you think there would be no whistle blowers from NASA claiming that space flight is fake and the Earth is flat?  As I've mentioned before, even having 100 people in on a conspiracy is too risky for any reasonable person to attempt, let alone all the people they would need to be in on it to fake space travel.

You did mention the money left over after NASA does all of it's alleged fakery would be enough to pay each employee $1,000,000, but in reality faking space travel is actually more expensive then going to space.  Faking media takes a lot of man power and a lot of time, meaning that it's very expensive, and NASA releases more information then all major movie companies combined.  Major movie companies have tons of skilled animators and directors to make their movies and often that footage ends up costing hundreds to thousands of dollars per second of video.  YouTube channels like cinema sins show that movies always have various flaws in their story line that would give away that it's fake if it were to be passed off as real.  Just faking the footage captured by space crafts would often cost more then actually launching the space craft, and don't even get me started on what it would take to fake the launch which by the way is observed my thousands of ordinary people.

Can you substantiate the claim that it would be more expensive to make this:

Out of sheet metal and tin foil than to actually make one that works, send it into space, land it softly on the moon, and then come back perfectly unharmed?

The lunar lander did not come back unharmed. It had plenty of dents, scrapes, dust debris marks, and plenty of holes.

Why are you so adamant that the world is against you? Try applying that 'skepticism' to your own stupid ideas.

Quote from: Mainframes on May 22, 2015, 10:02:38 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 22, 2015, 08:21:53 AM

You only have to look at the supposed lunar rovers to see how absurd some of these stories are. It's no wonder people see conspiracies.

For anyone interested, go and look up owners manual for the lunar roving vehicle. 
You see, NASA or whichever bozo worked on putting the booklet together, must have tested the rover batteries out in the desert because the death of the batteries are at 115 degrees farenheit.
The moon in the shade or in direct sun is 250 plus or 250 minus isn't it?

1970's batteries. Hmmm. I mean we have batteries today that fail to play the game with your car when the temperature is minus frigging 5.
Those moon buggies could scoot about for miles on that terrain wthout a care in the world, in temperatures like this, we are told. Hahahahaha.

Might want to check the difference between ambient air temperature and surface temperature. Also perhaps some basic thermodynamics and heat transfer couldn't go amiss.

You might want to check out vacuum, as we are told the moon is in.

The moon is not in a vacuum. It is a low-G environment with plenty of dust. Some small objects even orbit the moon.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on May 17, 2015, 11:46:20 PM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on May 17, 2015, 11:41:35 PM

abaaaabbbb63 is right, and the numbers I was using were from the time of the Apollo missions.  The skepticism around the Apollo missions are not caused by whistle blowers, they originated with people who thought they saw proof that the Moon landings were faked in the footage taken from the Moon.  These "proofs" that the Moon landings are fake are all very easy to debunk with a bit of spacial reasoning and physics research.

I still think that there would have to be well over 1,000,000 people in on the conspiracy in order to fake space travel, mostly because of the dozens of space agencies around the world and the 40,000+ private contractors who regularly work for NASA.  In WWII, Adalf Hitler used indoctrination, bribes, and threats to try to keep people silent and yet there were still whistle blowers.  Why do you think there would be no whistle blowers from NASA claiming that space flight is fake and the Earth is flat?  As I've mentioned before, even having 100 people in on a conspiracy is too risky for any reasonable person to attempt, let alone all the people they would need to be in on it to fake space travel.

You did mention the money left over after NASA does all of it's alleged fakery would be enough to pay each employee $1,000,000, but in reality faking space travel is actually more expensive then going to space.  Faking media takes a lot of man power and a lot of time, meaning that it's very expensive, and NASA releases more information then all major movie companies combined.  Major movie companies have tons of skilled animators and directors to make their movies and often that footage ends up costing hundreds to thousands of dollars per second of video.  YouTube channels like cinema sins show that movies always have various flaws in their story line that would give away that it's fake if it were to be passed off as real.  Just faking the footage captured by space crafts would often cost more then actually launching the space craft, and don't even get me started on what it would take to fake the launch which by the way is observed my thousands of ordinary people.

Can you substantiate the claim that it would be more expensive to make this:

Out of sheet metal and tin foil than to actually make one that works, send it into space, land it softly on the moon, and then come back perfectly unharmed?

The lunar lander did not come back unharmed. It had plenty of dents, scrapes, dust debris marks, and plenty of holes.

Why are you so adamant that the world is against you? Try applying that 'skepticism' to your own stupid ideas.

I addressed this, and meant that the people came back unharmed. Sorry I wasn't more specific.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 22, 2015, 10:09:33 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on May 22, 2015, 10:02:38 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 22, 2015, 08:21:53 AM

You only have to look at the supposed lunar rovers to see how absurd some of these stories are. It's no wonder people see conspiracies.

For anyone interested, go and look up owners manual for the lunar roving vehicle. 
You see, NASA or whichever bozo worked on putting the booklet together, must have tested the rover batteries out in the desert because the death of the batteries are at 115 degrees farenheit.
The moon in the shade or in direct sun is 250 plus or 250 minus isn't it?

1970's batteries. Hmmm. I mean we have batteries today that fail to play the game with your car when the temperature is minus frigging 5.
Those moon buggies could scoot about for miles on that terrain wthout a care in the world, in temperatures like this, we are told. Hahahahaha.

Might want to check the difference between ambient air temperature and surface temperature. Also perhaps some basic thermodynamics and heat transfer couldn't go amiss.

You might want to check out vacuum, as we are told the moon is in.

The moon is not in a vacuum. It is a low-G environment with plenty of dust. Some small objects even orbit the moon.

Gravity != Vacuum

Quote from: Bill_the_Pretender on May 27, 2015, 09:02:21 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on May 17, 2015, 11:46:20 PM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on May 17, 2015, 11:41:35 PM

abaaaabbbb63 is right, and the numbers I was using were from the time of the Apollo missions.  The skepticism around the Apollo missions are not caused by whistle blowers, they originated with people who thought they saw proof that the Moon landings were faked in the footage taken from the Moon.  These "proofs" that the Moon landings are fake are all very easy to debunk with a bit of spacial reasoning and physics research.

I still think that there would have to be well over 1,000,000 people in on the conspiracy in order to fake space travel, mostly because of the dozens of space agencies around the world and the 40,000+ private contractors who regularly work for NASA.  In WWII, Adalf Hitler used indoctrination, bribes, and threats to try to keep people silent and yet there were still whistle blowers.  Why do you think there would be no whistle blowers from NASA claiming that space flight is fake and the Earth is flat?  As I've mentioned before, even having 100 people in on a conspiracy is too risky for any reasonable person to attempt, let alone all the people they would need to be in on it to fake space travel.

You did mention the money left over after NASA does all of it's alleged fakery would be enough to pay each employee $1,000,000, but in reality faking space travel is actually more expensive then going to space.  Faking media takes a lot of man power and a lot of time, meaning that it's very expensive, and NASA releases more information then all major movie companies combined.  Major movie companies have tons of skilled animators and directors to make their movies and often that footage ends up costing hundreds to thousands of dollars per second of video.  YouTube channels like cinema sins show that movies always have various flaws in their story line that would give away that it's fake if it were to be passed off as real.  Just faking the footage captured by space crafts would often cost more then actually launching the space craft, and don't even get me started on what it would take to fake the launch which by the way is observed my thousands of ordinary people.

Can you substantiate the claim that it would be more expensive to make this:

Out of sheet metal and tin foil than to actually make one that works, send it into space, land it softly on the moon, and then come back perfectly unharmed?

The lunar lander did not come back unharmed. It had plenty of dents, scrapes, dust debris marks, and plenty of holes.

Why are you so adamant that the world is against you? Try applying that 'skepticism' to your own stupid ideas.

I addressed this, and meant that the people came back unharmed. Sorry I wasn't more specific.

The people didn't come back unharmed. Radiation damage is perfectly common among lunar vehicles and their passengers. The atmosphere of the moon is so thin, it is not capable of providing any type of shielding from the Sun, and from gradient radiation in space. It also does not have an iron core big enough to supply magnetic shielding. You live an almost radiation-free life on Earth, simply because of our magnetosphere and atmosphere.

Also, in space and low-G environments, there is pretty significant bone damage depending on the duration of your stay. This is due to the lack of gravity supplying your bones with force, which creates tension, which stretches your bones and encourages growth.

You should look this up. It's common knowledge. Oh wait, you FE nuts don't trust any 'mainstream' source. Nevermind.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on May 27, 2015, 09:06:21 PM

Quote from: Bill_the_Pretender on May 27, 2015, 09:02:21 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on May 17, 2015, 11:46:20 PM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on May 17, 2015, 11:41:35 PM

abaaaabbbb63 is right, and the numbers I was using were from the time of the Apollo missions.  The skepticism around the Apollo missions are not caused by whistle blowers, they originated with people who thought they saw proof that the Moon landings were faked in the footage taken from the Moon.  These "proofs" that the Moon landings are fake are all very easy to debunk with a bit of spacial reasoning and physics research.

I still think that there would have to be well over 1,000,000 people in on the conspiracy in order to fake space travel, mostly because of the dozens of space agencies around the world and the 40,000+ private contractors who regularly work for NASA.  In WWII, Adalf Hitler used indoctrination, bribes, and threats to try to keep people silent and yet there were still whistle blowers.  Why do you think there would be no whistle blowers from NASA claiming that space flight is fake and the Earth is flat?  As I've mentioned before, even having 100 people in on a conspiracy is too risky for any reasonable person to attempt, let alone all the people they would need to be in on it to fake space travel.

You did mention the money left over after NASA does all of it's alleged fakery would be enough to pay each employee $1,000,000, but in reality faking space travel is actually more expensive then going to space.  Faking media takes a lot of man power and a lot of time, meaning that it's very expensive, and NASA releases more information then all major movie companies combined.  Major movie companies have tons of skilled animators and directors to make their movies and often that footage ends up costing hundreds to thousands of dollars per second of video.  YouTube channels like cinema sins show that movies always have various flaws in their story line that would give away that it's fake if it were to be passed off as real.  Just faking the footage captured by space crafts would often cost more then actually launching the space craft, and don't even get me started on what it would take to fake the launch which by the way is observed my thousands of ordinary people.

Can you substantiate the claim that it would be more expensive to make this:

Out of sheet metal and tin foil than to actually make one that works, send it into space, land it softly on the moon, and then come back perfectly unharmed?

The lunar lander did not come back unharmed. It had plenty of dents, scrapes, dust debris marks, and plenty of holes.

Why are you so adamant that the world is against you? Try applying that 'skepticism' to your own stupid ideas.

I addressed this, and meant that the people came back unharmed. Sorry I wasn't more specific.

The people didn't come back unharmed. Radiation damage is perfectly common among lunar vehicles and their passengers. The atmosphere of the moon is so thin, it is not capable of providing any type of shielding from the Sun, and from gradient radiation in space. It also does not have an iron core big enough to supply magnetic shielding. You live an almost radiation-free life on Earth, simply because of our magnetosphere and atmosphere.

Also, in space and low-G environments, there is pretty significant bone damage depending on the duration of your stay. This is due to the lack of gravity supplying your bones with force, which creates tension, which stretches your bones and encourages growth.

You should look this up. It's common knowledge. Oh wait, you FE nuts don't trust any 'mainstream' source. Nevermind.

Strange, I couldn't find anything about them suffering from space sickness, or anything of the like.
Neil lived until 82. Buzz is 85. Michael is 84.