NASA

  • 204 Replies
  • 64009 Views
*

DDDDAts all folks

  • 1283
  • +0/-0
Re: NASA
« Reply #120 on: April 22, 2012, 12:22:56 PM »
Tom, if the NASA conspiracy is so elaborate then why would they allow something like this to be released?

Probably because they are confident in the public's extreme delusion of globularism. Look at this thread.

Or they have nothing to hide and allow the conspiracy theorists to get on with it because they know the truth speaks for itself.

I have an open mind on the situation, I just want to see the photograph and firstly ascertain it's credibility before going into the possible construction methods of the lander.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2012, 12:25:44 PM by DDDDAts all folks »

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: NASA
« Reply #121 on: April 22, 2012, 12:23:49 PM »
  Also, since there is no atmosphere, I see no source of extreme vibration.

Again, what about launch?
What about it? Did you forget about the SLA?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45105
  • +87/-128
Re: NASA
« Reply #122 on: April 22, 2012, 12:29:17 PM »
  Also, since there is no atmosphere, I see no source of extreme vibration.

Again, what about launch?

What about it?  If you're referring to the launch from the earth, then rest assured that the LM is tucked away nicely and is well protected from any atmospheric friction or vibration. 

Just how heavy do you think that these "heat shields" on the LM are?  How much tape do you need to gift wrap a present?  How much vibration would you need to damage that wrapping paper or cause the tape to come loose?  The "heat shield" that Tom keeps going on about is basically the same space blanket used in modern survival kits and the like.  Very thin, very light, very strong and very heat reflective.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2012, 12:30:53 PM by markjo »
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

EmperorZhark

  • 2229
  • +0/-0
Re: NASA
« Reply #123 on: April 22, 2012, 12:32:47 PM »
So you confirm that your imagination is your only evidence.

I am hearing arguments that it's okay for the LEM to be poorly constructed. "Tape holding together the heat shield and other components? Who cares... why can't tape be a proper building material for space ships???"

Clearly I am speaking to children. The denialism and deliberate ignorance here is desperate and sad.

It is not opinion that tape is an improper building material for a multi-billion dollar space craft designed to explore foreign worlds. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature knows that a real space ship would not be crudely thrown together.

Bla-bla-bla.

Nobody denies it LOOKS crudely built.
But you are stuck by the envelope of the LEM. May be you should research a tiny bit to discover what's under the envelope.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8781
  • +1/-2
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: NASA
« Reply #124 on: April 22, 2012, 12:45:55 PM »
  Also, since there is no atmosphere, I see no source of extreme vibration.

Again, what about launch?

What about it?  If you're referring to the launch from the earth, then rest assured that the LM is tucked away nicely and is well protected from any atmospheric friction or vibration. 
Of course it is free of atmospheric friction. Your vibration claim is laughable.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • +0/-0
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: NASA
« Reply #125 on: April 22, 2012, 12:47:53 PM »
I note you carefully ignoring my mention that regardless of how you label the Grumman engineers, the fact is they went out and built this spacecraft and therefore in your view are members of the conspiracy if it would not function, or if they're not, then the spacecraft has to be legitimate in terms of design.
Which is it, Mr Bishop?
You won't address this.


I see I was right.

What are you talking about? I already addressed that. Grumman contractors work for NASA and do what NASA tells them to do. If NASA says jump, they jump. If NASA says a Top Secret clearance is required, they need to get a Top Secret clearance.

The Non Disclosure Agreements at secret government facilities are a little different than the NDA's at private companies, namely that the government version ends with words in line with "... will be considered treason against the United States of America and will result in a military trial and is punishable by death."

No, you are incorrectly answering what you think I said, because you don't bother reading posts properly. You did the same thing in my thread disproving lens distortion as the cause of curvature at altitude. Let me make it simple enough that a Child Of Five can understand it:

1: If Grumman contractors built a fake spaceship, then that means the employees at Grumman are members of the conspiracy because trained aerospace engineers would damn well notice if they built something that couldn't work.

2. If Grumman contractors built a functional spacecraft that would actually work in the supposed lunar environment, then they do not need to be members of the conspiracy as they merely completed a job to order, including designing it.

3. Tom Bishop claims both that the spacecraft is a non-functional mock up AND that the Grumman contractors were not Conspiracy members. These two facts cannot both be true for the reasons stated above.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: NASA
« Reply #126 on: April 22, 2012, 12:50:06 PM »
1: If Grumman contractors built a fake spaceship, then that means the employees at Grumman are members of the conspiracy because trained aerospace engineers would damn well notice if they built something that couldn't work.

2. If Grumman contractors built a functional spacecraft that would actually work in the supposed lunar environment, then they do not need to be members of the conspiracy as they merely completed a job to order, including designing it.

3. Tom Bishop claims both that the spacecraft is a non-functional mock up AND that the Grumman contractors were not Conspiracy members. These two facts cannot both be true for the reasons stated above.

The Grumman contractors NASA brought in could have even been told that they were building prop models of the Lunar Lander for display at museums. The NASA manager just has to tell the Grumman contractors that "oh you're on the B-Team making the models, sorry." The supposed A-Team making the real deal doesn't exist.

They don't even need to be in on it.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • +0/-0
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: NASA
« Reply #127 on: April 22, 2012, 12:51:43 PM »
1: If Grumman contractors built a fake spaceship, then that means the employees at Grumman are members of the conspiracy because trained aerospace engineers would damn well notice if they built something that couldn't work.

2. If Grumman contractors built a functional spacecraft that would actually work in the supposed lunar environment, then they do not need to be members of the conspiracy as they merely completed a job to order, including designing it.

3. Tom Bishop claims both that the spacecraft is a non-functional mock up AND that the Grumman contractors were not Conspiracy members. These two facts cannot both be true for the reasons stated above.

The Grumman contractors NASA brought in could have even been told that they were building prop models of the Lunar Lander for display at museums. The NASA manager just has to tell the Grumman contractors that "oh you're on the B-Team making the models, sorry." The supposed A-Team making the real deal doesn't exist.

They don't even need to be in on it.

Grumman designed the lander, idiot.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11852
  • +10/-5
Re: NASA
« Reply #128 on: April 22, 2012, 01:07:45 PM »
Tom the brain washing of the public is so entrenched in most people that the light of reason cannot shine through.
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

*

DDDDAts all folks

  • 1283
  • +0/-0
Re: NASA
« Reply #129 on: April 22, 2012, 01:08:06 PM »
I don't even know if what we're looking at are prop landers for museums.

I think we should ascertain whether that's the case first before asking if the construction methods are right.

edit: Without looking at the pictures I think they probably are props because the real landers are currently on the moon!!
« Last Edit: April 22, 2012, 01:14:03 PM by DDDDAts all folks »

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6758
  • +0/-0
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: NASA
« Reply #130 on: April 22, 2012, 01:10:22 PM »
1: If Grumman contractors built a fake spaceship, then that means the employees at Grumman are members of the conspiracy because trained aerospace engineers would damn well notice if they built something that couldn't work.

2. If Grumman contractors built a functional spacecraft that would actually work in the supposed lunar environment, then they do not need to be members of the conspiracy as they merely completed a job to order, including designing it.

3. Tom Bishop claims both that the spacecraft is a non-functional mock up AND that the Grumman contractors were not Conspiracy members. These two facts cannot both be true for the reasons stated above.

The Grumman contractors NASA brought in could have even been told that they were building prop models of the Lunar Lander for display at museums. The NASA manager just has to tell the Grumman contractors that "oh you're on the B-Team making the models, sorry." The supposed A-Team making the real deal doesn't exist.

They don't even need to be in on it.

Grumman designed the lander, idiot.

Personal attack, final warning.

?

Cat Earth Theory

  • 1614
  • +0/-0
  • I practise the Zetetic Method!
Re: NASA
« Reply #131 on: April 22, 2012, 01:12:39 PM »
Tom the brain washing of the public is so entrenched in most people that the light of reason cannot shine through.

I've yet to even see you present an actual argument, let alone provide evidence for your beliefs.

I don't think spreading the light of reason through garbage posts like this is a very effective strategy.
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.

?

EmperorZhark

  • 2229
  • +0/-0
Re: NASA
« Reply #132 on: April 22, 2012, 01:21:05 PM »
The Grumman contractors NASA brought in could have even been told that they were building prop models of the Lunar Lander for display at museums. The NASA manager just has to tell the Grumman contractors that "oh you're on the B-Team making the models, sorry." The supposed A-Team making the real deal doesn't exist.

Source?
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • +0/-0
  • Ding dong!
Re: NASA
« Reply #133 on: April 22, 2012, 01:45:59 PM »
It is not opinion that tape is an improper building material for a multi-billion dollar space craft designed to explore foreign worlds.

If the spacecraft was held together with scotch and landing on Venus, then yes, you are correct.
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

?

iwanttobelieve

  • 5442
  • +0/-0
Re: NASA
« Reply #134 on: April 22, 2012, 04:48:40 PM »
1: If Grumman contractors built a fake spaceship, then that means the employees at Grumman are members of the conspiracy because trained aerospace engineers would damn well notice if they built something that couldn't work.

2. If Grumman contractors built a functional spacecraft that would actually work in the supposed lunar environment, then they do not need to be members of the conspiracy as they merely completed a job to order, including designing it.

3. Tom Bishop claims both that the spacecraft is a non-functional mock up AND that the Grumman contractors were not Conspiracy members. These two facts cannot both be true for the reasons stated above.

The Grumman contractors NASA brought in could have even been told that they were building prop models of the Lunar Lander for display at museums. The NASA manager just has to tell the Grumman contractors that "oh you're on the B-Team making the models, sorry." The supposed A-Team making the real deal doesn't exist.

They don't even need to be in on it.

Grumman designed the lander, idiot.

Personal attack, final warning.


Attack on the hard working people of NASA are personal as well,
If the poster gets a "final" warning then all that attack NASA get warnings as well,

to be a moderator, means fair an equal treatment.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: NASA
« Reply #135 on: April 22, 2012, 10:07:47 PM »
Grumman designed the lander, idiot.

A Grumman graphic design contractor may have provided the basic design of the lunar lander and the illustrations sent to the media and used in the proposal to congress. Not very convincing. But I suppose someone had to draw those illustrations.

I don't even know if what we're looking at are prop landers for museums.

I think we should ascertain whether that's the case first before asking if the construction methods are right.

edit: Without looking at the pictures I think they probably are props because the real landers are currently on the moon!!

If you had been reading the thread you wouldn't have missed the link in the last post of page 2 of this thread and you would know that the LEM picture in question was allegedly taken from the surface of the moon during an Apollo EVA.

The Grumman contractors NASA brought in could have even been told that they were building prop models of the Lunar Lander for display at museums. The NASA manager just has to tell the Grumman contractors that "oh you're on the B-Team making the models, sorry." The supposed A-Team making the real deal doesn't exist.

Source?

A source for what? No claim was made. I was telling you how NASA could keep Grumman contractors in the dark by telling them they would be working on a museum prop.

On the same token, the people building the Moon Ball could have been told that they were making a lunar lander simulator, rather than told that NASA was going to use it to fake the moon missions.

The demolition experts who set off explosives in the Arizona desert could have been told that they were blowing up the desert because NASA wanted a perfect representation of the lunar surface (so perfect that aerial photos of the Arizona site and the post-EVA photo from the lander on its ascent to the command module look identical!).
« Last Edit: April 23, 2012, 02:27:26 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: NASA
« Reply #136 on: April 22, 2012, 10:14:10 PM »
Grumman designed the lander, idiot.

Grumman may have provided the basic design of the lunar lander and illustrations sent to the media and used in the proposal to congress. Not very convincing. But I suppose someone had to draw those illustrations.

I don't even know if what we're looking at are prop landers for museums.

I think we should ascertain whether that's the case first before asking if the construction methods are right.

edit: Without looking at the pictures I think they probably are props because the real landers are currently on the moon!!

If you saw the original link you would know that the picture in question was allegedly taken from the surface of the moon. I suggest you read the thread.

The Grumman contractors NASA brought in could have even been told that they were building prop models of the Lunar Lander for display at museums. The NASA manager just has to tell the Grumman contractors that "oh you're on the B-Team making the models, sorry." The supposed A-Team making the real deal doesn't exist.

Source?

A source for what? No claim was made. I was telling you how NASA could keep Grumman contractors in the dark by telling them they would be working on a museum prop.

On the tame token, the people making the http://Moon Ball could have been told that they were making a lunar lander simulator, rather than told that NASA was faking the moon missions.

The guys ]setting off explosives in the Arizona desert could have been told that they were blowing up the desert because NASA wanted a perfect representation of the lunar surface (so perfect that areal photo of the Arizona site and the post-launch photo from the lander look identical!)
Please fix your BBcodes. Thanks.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45105
  • +87/-128
Re: NASA
« Reply #137 on: April 22, 2012, 10:14:47 PM »
Tom, it's easy to come up with a lot of things that could have happened.  Do you have any evidence whatsoever that any of what you say did happen?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: NASA
« Reply #138 on: April 22, 2012, 10:24:43 PM »
Tom, it's easy to come up with a lot of things that could have happened.  Do you have any evidence whatsoever that any of what you say did happen?

I was answering the question of how NASA could do this without involving the low tier workers in on the conspiracy.

What's your issue?

*

DDDDAts all folks

  • 1283
  • +0/-0
Re: NASA
« Reply #139 on: April 22, 2012, 11:44:30 PM »

If you had been reading the thread you wouldn't have missed the link in the last post of page 2 of this thread and you would know that the LEM picture in question was allegedly taken from the surface of the moon during an Apollo EVA.


Thanks, I did read the thread but I missed that link. Now that I've actually seen the picture I don't see scotch tape at all.

What I see is a lunar module with heat, dust and EM blankets being secured to the space craft using a special kind of copper tape.

How would you secure those blankets to the craft? And the reason why it looks like curtain poles etc... is because the design required a minimal weight.

I don't see a poorly constructed lunar module at all.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: NASA
« Reply #140 on: April 22, 2012, 11:57:14 PM »
Thanks, I did read the thread but I missed that link. Now that I've actually seen the picture I don't see scotch tape at all.

What I see is a lunar module with heat, dust and EM blankets being secured to the space craft using a special kind of copper tape.

Scotch is a brand.

Duct Tape is Scotch Tape, Packing Tape is Scotch Tape, and Copper Tape is Scotch Tape.

How would you secure those blankets to the craft?

Not with tape. Consider that the craft has to

- experience the vibration and extreme g's from the initial launch from the earth while in storage
- endure the vibration of its engine when landing on the moon's surface
- endure any dust reflected off of the lunar surface from the engines
- it has to endure the shock of impact

Any one of these could dislodge tape.

No aerospace engineer in his right mind would secure things on a space ship with tape.

Quote
And the reason why it looks like curtain poles etc... is because the design required a minimal weight.

So minimal that they built the lunar lander out of cardboard, aluminum foil, and shower hangers, I'm sure.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2012, 09:28:55 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

29silhouette

  • 3374
  • +0/-0
Re: NASA
« Reply #141 on: April 23, 2012, 12:41:43 AM »
Why would a space craft designed to only ever operate in a vacuum need anything more than tape to affix reflective covers?  Do you think that the solar wind is strong enough to blow these covers off?



Please recall that the Lunar Lander has to land and blast off from the surface of the moon. It must endure extreme vibration, several g-forces, and the shock of impact. Not to mention the engine would also be blowing up dust at high velocities.

No real space agency would hold the heat shield and other components together with tape. How ridiculous!



The LEM has to land, the 'descent stage' half stays behind, and the 'ascent stage' half blasts off, and yes, it's the moon, so the gravity is 1/8 of earth.  The LEM's weight of 32,399 lbs would be 5,507 lbs on the moon, and the ascent stage itself would be 1,704 lbs (not including crew) so how much G-force are they going to deal with blasting off from the moon (considering it's 17% of Earths gravity)

I've seen tape handle plenty of vibration.  I've done some tape jobs myself (duct-tape holding a machete sheath to my quad) that held up to a lot of vibration just fine.

Shock of impact?  How hard do you really think they landed?  Of course though, you don't believe they even landed in the first place, so I guess it's a moot point.

The insulation is held together with tape, but other components?  I see plenty of framework and other bracing using struts, nuts and bolts, etc.

Quote from: 29silhouette
Do you have any real reason why aesthetic appeal should have been such a concern that using heavier and more solid looking exterior shielding would have been would have been justified, thus requiring more materials and parts, more designing, more fabricating, more framework, bigger rockets, more fuel, etc, etc.



Do you have any real justification for why tape was used to hold together the lunar lander? Of course not.
Yes. I've been over it a few times now.


A heat shield could have been welded, fastened, or integrated into the skin of the craft. Tape holding it is absolutely absurd.
Welding would have been more weight, more cost, more fabricating (welding soft materials to solid metal doesn't work well, so the heat shielding would have had to have been thicker plating of some kind).  Fastening would have again required more solid plating of some kind.  (although it could have been done with thin materials, but would have required more work to achieve even load distribution at the anchor points.) 

Integrated?  Sure it's integrated into the skin of the craft.  The sun shielding material basically is the outer skin, and I don't know what's absurd about it.  It's holding the material in place.  You can see it in the very photos you provided.

Thanks, I did read the thread but I missed that link. Now that I've actually seen the picture I don't see scotch tape at all.

What I see is a lunar module with heat, dust and EM blankets being secured to the space craft using a special kind of copper tape.

Scotch is a brand.

Duct Tape is Scotch Tape, Packing Tape is Scotch Tape, and Copper Tape is Scotch Tape.
Indeed, 'Scotch' is a brand.  Very good.  So are 3M, Nashua, Ducks, and probably many more.  'Type' varies greatly though.

?

EmperorZhark

  • 2229
  • +0/-0
Re: NASA
« Reply #142 on: April 23, 2012, 03:41:32 AM »
Thanks, I did read the thread but I missed that link. Now that I've actually seen the picture I don't see scotch tape at all.

What I see is a lunar module with heat, dust and EM blankets being secured to the space craft using a special kind of copper tape.

Scotch is a brand.

Duct Tape is Scotch Tape, Packing Tape is Scotch Tape, and Copper Tape is Scotch Tape.

How would you secure those blankets to the craft?

Not with tape. Consider that the craft has to

- experience the vibration and extreme g's from the surface of the earth while in storage
- endure the vibration of its engine when landing on the moon's surface
- endure any dust reflected off of the lunar surface from the engines
- it has to endure the shock of impact

Any one of these could dislodge tape.

No aerospace engineer in his right mind would secure things on a space ship with tape.

Quote
And the reason why it looks like curtain poles etc... is because the design required a minimal weight.

So minimal that they built the lunar lander out of cardboard, aluminum foil, and shower hangers, I'm sure.

You have no clue of the specificaions of the materials used, have you?

You repeat "tape" like a recording machine, but what kind of tape is it?
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3115
  • +1/-0
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: NASA
« Reply #143 on: April 23, 2012, 08:47:02 AM »
Not with tape. Consider that the craft has to

- experience the vibration and extreme g's from the surface of the earth while in storage
- endure the vibration of its engine when landing on the moon's surface
- endure any dust reflected off of the lunar surface from the engines
- it has to endure the shock of impact

Any one of these could dislodge tape.

No aerospace engineer in his right mind would secure things on a space ship with tape.

Quote
And the reason why it looks like curtain poles etc... is because the design required a minimal weight.

So minimal that they built the lunar lander out of cardboard, aluminum foil, and shower hangers, I'm sure.

Incorrect.

http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/3M-Industrial/Adhesives/Product/Bonding-Tapes/VHB-Tape/

depends on the type of tape used.

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11852
  • +10/-5
Re: NASA
« Reply #144 on: April 23, 2012, 09:00:55 AM »
Tape is for hillbillies to fix things, not NASA.
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3115
  • +1/-0
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: NASA
« Reply #145 on: April 23, 2012, 09:03:58 AM »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: NASA
« Reply #146 on: April 23, 2012, 09:41:38 AM »
The LEM has to land, the 'descent stage' half stays behind, and the 'ascent stage' half blasts off, and yes, it's the moon, so the gravity is 1/8 of earth.  The LEM's weight of 32,399 lbs would be 5,507 lbs on the moon, and the ascent stage itself would be 1,704 lbs (not including crew) so how much G-force are they going to deal with blasting off from the moon (considering it's 17% of Earths gravity)

Incorrect. It also has to endure the vibration and G-Forces from the initial launch of the Saturn V, which is not trivial.

Quote
Shock of impact?  How hard do you really think they landed?  Of course though, you don't believe they even landed in the first place, so I guess it's a moot point.

No legitimate space agency would use tape to hold things together on a space ship and cross their fingers that the impact of landing or the vibration of the engines wouldn't dislodge the adhesive.

Quote
The insulation is held together with tape, but other components?  I see plenty of framework and other bracing using struts, nuts and bolts, etc.

There aren't any nuts or bolts. Stop lying.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2012, 09:44:12 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

DDDDAts all folks

  • 1283
  • +0/-0
Re: NASA
« Reply #147 on: April 23, 2012, 10:10:40 AM »
Thanks, I did read the thread but I missed that link. Now that I've actually seen the picture I don't see scotch tape at all.

What I see is a lunar module with heat, dust and EM blankets being secured to the space craft using a special kind of copper tape.

Scotch is a brand.

Duct Tape is Scotch Tape, Packing Tape is Scotch Tape, and Copper Tape is Scotch Tape.

How would you secure those blankets to the craft?

Not with tape. Consider that the craft has to

- experience the vibration and extreme g's from the initial launch from the earth while in storage
- endure the vibration of its engine when landing on the moon's surface
- endure any dust reflected off of the lunar surface from the engines
- it has to endure the shock of impact

Any one of these could dislodge tape.

No aerospace engineer in his right mind would secure things on a space ship with tape.

Quote
And the reason why it looks like curtain poles etc... is because the design required a minimal weight.

So minimal that they built the lunar lander out of cardboard, aluminum foil, and shower hangers, I'm sure.

It certainly looks like the 'tape' used in that picture is a little different to the type you'd get commercially, but I have no evidence to back that up only what I can see in the picture.

Have you ever tried to 'unstick' tape from something through vibration alone? I suggest you go and try it.

The amount of 'force' the tape would need to hold would be related to the mass of the blankets in question assuming that's what the 'tape' was for. However it looks like the 'tape' was used to seal off areas so the 'blankets' protect more of the space crafts components, it wasn't used to hold the 'blankets' up.

And in the picture I see no cardboard, aluminum foil or shower hangers.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45105
  • +87/-128
Re: NASA
« Reply #148 on: April 23, 2012, 10:11:24 AM »
Tom, it's easy to come up with a lot of things that could have happened.  Do you have any evidence whatsoever that any of what you say did happen?

I was answering the question of how NASA could do this without involving the low tier workers in on the conspiracy.

What's your issue?

My issue is that you have nothing but speculation to support your case.

No legitimate space agency would use tape to hold things together on a space ship and cross their fingers that the impact of landing or the vibration of the engines wouldn't dislodge the adhesive.

How many G-forces does it take to dislodge a space blanket taped to a lunar lander?  Also, how would you know what a legitimate space agency would or would not do if you claim that there are no legitimate space agencies to begin with?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • +0/-0
  • Ding dong!
Re: NASA
« Reply #149 on: April 23, 2012, 10:25:18 AM »
The LEM has to land, the 'descent stage' half stays behind, and the 'ascent stage' half blasts off, and yes, it's the moon, so the gravity is 1/8 of earth.  The LEM's weight of 32,399 lbs would be 5,507 lbs on the moon, and the ascent stage itself would be 1,704 lbs (not including crew) so how much G-force are they going to deal with blasting off from the moon (considering it's 17% of Earths gravity)

Incorrect. It also has to endure the vibration and G-Forces from the initial launch of the Saturn V, which is not trivial.

Quote
Shock of impact?  How hard do you really think they landed?  Of course though, you don't believe they even landed in the first place, so I guess it's a moot point.

No legitimate space agency would use tape to hold things together on a space ship and cross their fingers that the impact of landing or the vibration of the engines wouldn't dislodge the adhesive.

Tom, if the astronauts themselves can survive the take-off, then I think the tape can.  Some human tissue is weaker than industrial tape, I think you'll find.


I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.