NASA

Quote from: The Knowledge on April 24, 2012, 06:25:58 PM

I'd like to see Tom explain why, if NASA were faking a mission and wanted to therefore make it believable, would they not make a spacecraft that looked like the public imagining of what a spacecraft looks like (like the image in Tom's head)? Why would they make something that looked like this if their only aim was to pretend? It makes no sense.

The crafts used in the Apollo missions are not original. The concept of a Lunar Lander actually comes from an old pre-apollo movie called Frau im Mond, a silent-era movie about a mission to the moon. The three stage Saturn V, the Vehicle Assembly Building, the giant rolling launch pad which carries the Saturn V vertically, the dramatic countdown sequence, the floating water globule scenes, the spider lander, are all blatant rip-offs of Frau im Mond.

So what you're saying is that NASA made the lunar lander look ropey because they based it on a poor quality silent movie prop without any thought of making it look more convincing?
Well, I'm convinced. Let us leave the thread my fellow RE'ers, for we are defeated in debate. 

Quote from: 29silhouette on April 23, 2012, 12:41:43 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.

4g's according to the Apollo 15 log I read.

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.

Do you have any experience with tape at all?  I've used tape both temporarily and permanently in various applications.  If the surface is clean and dry, it sticks.

I've used transparent adhesive vinyl sheets (8.5x11 sheet of tape basically) cut out to cover stickers I made using 8.5x11 label paper. (both can be commonly found at sign-pro or office depot, etc)  I've applied them to my 4-wheeler over the last 8 years.  The stickers are on semi-rigid plastic, and exposed to sunlight, snow, hot weather, cold weather, rain, mud, sand, and excessive vibrations from rough terrain, engine, etc, and they are doing fine.  I've used the same thing on my snowboard too.

There's not enough vibration over a long enough time during the apollo mission to make tape come loose (if it would ever come loose at all from vibration).

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.

Oh the irony of you telling me to stop lying after some of the stuff I've seen you post in the past.

Do you have a source that tells how they're fastened together, or are you basing it on 'I can't see any nuts and bolts in the picture, therefore there are none'?

Quote from: markjo on April 24, 2012, 01:17:36 PM

No, they are not.  They merely covers for the aft equipment bay.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/misc/apmisc-LM-noID-16.jpg

I see a lot of tape in that junkyard of a picture. Why are the important internal components of a space ship being held together with tape?

I see one component in all that with a layer of some outer covering using some tape. 

In the last image I posted the tape is holding together more than the blankets. It's holding the structural integrity of the craft together.

I see it being used on the outer covering and wrapping.  Not the actual structural integrity.  Stop lying.

10 pages and Tom Bishop is still assuming. No proofs, just looks!

So what you're saying is that NASA made the lunar lander look ropey because they based it on a poor quality silent movie prop without any thought of making it look more convincing?

Nope. It's ropey because NASA isn't really engineering multi-billion dollar space craft.

Do you have any experience with tape at all?  I've used tape both temporarily and permanently in various applications.  If the surface is clean and dry, it sticks.

No one in their right mind would use tape to keep a space ship together.

There's not enough vibration over a long enough time during the apollo mission to make tape come loose (if it would ever come loose at all from vibration).

Why risk it?

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.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 23, 2012, 09:41:38 AM

There aren't any nuts or bolts. Stop lying.

Oh the irony of you telling me to stop lying after some of the stuff I've seen you post in the past.

Do you have a source that tells how they're fastened together, or are you basing it on 'I can't see any nuts and bolts in the picture, therefore there are none'?

You are the one who said that you could see nuts and bolts when I posted the image -- "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. Please point them out for us.

I see it being used on the outer covering and wrapping.  Not the actual structural integrity.  Stop lying.

Curious that a space agency would secure together the outer walls of a spacecraft with tape of all things. One would think that the outer walls would be somewhat important.

10 pages and Tom Bishop is still assuming. No proofs, just looks!

Photographic evidence is proof dumbshoe.

Quote from: EmperorZhark on April 28, 2012, 06:50:37 AM

10 pages and Tom Bishop is still assuming. No proofs, just looks!

Photographic evidence is proof dumbshoe.

Except when when it disagrees with your position.  Also, please refrain from name calling.

Quote from: EmperorZhark on April 28, 2012, 06:50:37 AM

10 pages and Tom Bishop is still assuming. No proofs, just looks!

Photographic evidence is proof dumbshoe.

Even if you saw the LEM in real, you would say: "it looks fake, therefore it is". This has been your point all along!

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 28, 2012, 09:38:08 AM

Quote from: EmperorZhark on April 28, 2012, 06:50:37 AM

10 pages and Tom Bishop is still assuming. No proofs, just looks!

Photographic evidence is proof dumbshoe.

Even if you saw the LEM in real, you would say: "it looks fake, therefore it is". This has been your point all along!

Photographic evidence that the Lunar Lander is fake is evidence that it is fake. I don't know what your problem is.

Photographic evidence that the Lunar Lander is fake is evidence that it is fake. I don't know what your problem is.

The problem is that you haven't provided any photographic evidence that the lunar lander is fake.  The only thing that you've done is go on and on about how some loose fitting covers make the LM crude.  Well, the LM is 1960s technology, so I suppose that it is crude by modern standards.  That does not, however, prove that the LM is fake.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 28, 2012, 12:08:17 PM

Photographic evidence that the Lunar Lander is fake is evidence that it is fake. I don't know what your problem is.

The problem is that you haven't provided any photographic evidence that the lunar lander is fake.  The only thing that you've done is go on and on about how some loose fitting covers make the LM crude.  Well, the LM is 1960s technology, so I suppose that it is crude by modern standards.  That does not, however, prove that the LM is fake.

NASA has provided the evidence of the lander being fake.

NASA has provided the evidence of the lander being fake.

Would you care to support this claim?

The picture with tape is sufficient evidence of fakery.

The picture with tape is sufficient evidence of fakery.

You and Tom have no idea what is a proof and what is scientific reasoning.

If this is your standard for accepting proofs, then you are ready to swallow eerything, ie FET.

The picture with tape is sufficient evidence of fakery.

Or, it's sufficient evidence that you have no idea as to how the LM was designed and built.

Quote from: hoppy on April 28, 2012, 01:21:54 PM

The picture with tape is sufficient evidence of fakery.

Or, it's sufficient evidence that you have no idea as to how the LM was designed and built.

I do have an idea how it was built, it was taped together.

Quote from: markjo on April 28, 2012, 02:34:13 PM

Quote from: hoppy on April 28, 2012, 01:21:54 PM

The picture with tape is sufficient evidence of fakery.

Or, it's sufficient evidence that you have no idea as to how the LM was designed and built.

I do have an idea how it was built, it was taped together.

What evidence do you have to support that claim?

Yes ,NASA has released pictures of it.

Yes ,NASA has released pictures of it.

Then perhaps you would be willing to share some of these pictures with us.

Quote from: hoppy on April 28, 2012, 05:47:59 PM

Yes ,NASA has released pictures of it.

Then perhaps you would be willing to share some of these pictures with us.

Please read the thread. This really is tiring. Just earlier I believe you were arguing something along the lines of "why isn't tape and cardboard proper construction materials for a lunar lander?"

The thing is a monstrosity.

Quote from: markjo on April 28, 2012, 06:18:05 PM

Quote from: hoppy on April 28, 2012, 05:47:59 PM

Yes ,NASA has released pictures of it.

Then perhaps you would be willing to share some of these pictures with us.

Please read the thread. This really is tiring. Just earlier I believe you were arguing something along the lines of "why isn't tape and cardboard proper construction materials for a lunar lander?"

The thing is a monstrosity.

Tom people are telling you that those pictures don't provide the evidence of what you're claiming and I agree with them.

Stop being so blind and closed minded.

Tom people are telling you that those pictures don't provide the evidence of what you're claiming and I agree with them.

Stop being so blind and closed minded.

The pictures absolutely provide evidence of a crudely put together spacecraft. It has been agreed in this thread that the pictures seem to show a crudely put together space craft, but that I needed to prove the difference between "looks" and "is". What a stupid statement. If a rock looks like a rock then it is a rock until someone shows that it's a rubber fake. If a crudely put together spaceship looks like a crudely put together rspaceship then it is crudly put together until demonstrated otherwise. There is no denial of facts.

Quote from: DDDDAts all folks on April 29, 2012, 02:12:47 AM

Tom people are telling you that those pictures don't provide the evidence of what you're claiming and I agree with them.

Stop being so blind and closed minded.

The pictures absolutely provide evidence of a crudely put together spacecraft. It has been agreed in this thread that the pictures seem to show a crudely put together space craft, but that I needed to prove the difference between "looks" and "is". What a stupid statement. If a rock looks like a rock then it is a rock until someone shows that it's a rubber fake. If a crudely put together spaceship looks like a crudely put together rspaceship then it is crudly put together until demonstrated otherwise. There is no denial of facts.

You are twisting the argument (as usual).

YOU have to prove that the LEM is a fake because, so far, it has been used to land and depart from the Moon.

Not the other way round. The same way as YOU have to prove FET and disprove RET.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 29, 2012, 06:38:57 AM

Quote from: DDDDAts all folks on April 29, 2012, 02:12:47 AM

Tom people are telling you that those pictures don't provide the evidence of what you're claiming and I agree with them.

Stop being so blind and closed minded.

The pictures absolutely provide evidence of a crudely put together spacecraft. It has been agreed in this thread that the pictures seem to show a crudely put together space craft, but that I needed to prove the difference between "looks" and "is". What a stupid statement. If a rock looks like a rock then it is a rock until someone shows that it's a rubber fake. If a crudely put together spaceship looks like a crudely put together rspaceship then it is crudly put together until demonstrated otherwise. There is no denial of facts.

You are twisting the argument (as usual).

YOU have to prove that the LEM is a fake because, so far, it has been used to land and depart from the Moon.

Not the other way round. The same way as YOU have to prove FET and disprove RET.

No, "so far, it has been used to land and depart from the surface of the moon." The evidence for a moon landing is shoddy and seems to be hastily put together.

If you watch the Apollo videos NASA doesn't even put an appropriate delay between the astronauts in the LEM and mission control, to account for the moon's distance. The astronauts and Huston are communicating faster than the speed of light.

"The Moon is 350-400,000km away from Earth, that is 1.25-1.4 Light Seconds. Yet the Communications Between Earth & The "Moon" have no Perceivable Delay. If they were really on the Moon there would have been a delay of 2.5-2.8 seconds between Ground Control and the Astronauts on the Surface of the Moon."

What a joke.

The pictures absolutely provide evidence of a crudely put together spacecraft. It has been agreed in this thread that the pictures seem to show a crudely put together space craft, but that I needed to prove the difference between "looks" and "is". What a stupid statement.

It's not stupid at all.  It's called "burden of proof".  You made the claim that the lunar module if fake, therefore it's up to you to support that claim.  So far you have not met that burden with sufficient evidence. 

Besides, have you never heard the term "crude but effective"?  This is 1960s era technology; of course it looks crude.  A lot of 1960s era technology looks crude by today's standards but worked just fine.

Quote from: 29silhouette

Do you have any experience with tape at all?  I've used tape both temporarily and permanently in various applications.  If the surface is clean and dry, it sticks.

No one in their right mind would use tape to keep a space ship together.

You're right, that's why it's used on the outer-most lightweight sunlight shielding and plastic wrap. 

Quote

There's not enough vibration over a long enough time during the apollo mission to make tape come loose (if it would ever come loose at all from vibration).

Why risk it?

  Because the tape is strong, lightweight, and adequate for the lightweight material it's holding.

Quote

Quote

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.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 23, 2012, 09:41:38 AM

There aren't any nuts or bolts. Stop lying.

Oh the irony of you telling me to stop lying after some of the stuff I've seen you post in the past.

Do you have a source that tells how they're fastened together, or are you basing it on 'I can't see any nuts and bolts in the picture, therefore there are none'?

You are the one who said that you could see nuts and bolts when I posted the image -- "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. Please point them out for us.

Other than a few pictures of packaging for nuts and bolts and a strut with a nut and bolt (both in private collections), I can't really find any that clearly show nuts and bolts  (If I ever see the module on display, I'll be sure to get close up pics)
http://freshspot.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/02/10/lm_truss_1_2.jpg 
http://freshspot.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/02/10/lm_truss_2.jpg

Why did I say nuts and bolts then?  Because I applied reasoning.  If those landing legs, support struts, etc, were all held together with tape, the weight of the entire structure would be too much for the lower assemblies, real OR fake.  Even if it were fake, there's still enough weight that the lower parts would probably come apart, splay outward, or sag down if merely taped together, which would mean welding, or bolts, screws etc.  And if they were throwing together a fake LEM, would they bother to weld the supporting framework?  Welding would also mean exact alignment of each piece when it's welded, otherwise some other part at the other end of that piece might not fit correctly.  Possibly they used bolts for the initial alignment, and then welded.  Since I didn't build it though, I'm not sure what method was used.  I see what could be bolts here and there, but the pictures aren't close enough to say with 100% accuracy.

What do you think is holding the structure that "a couple 13yr olds could build in a weekend" together in these pictures?
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/misc/apmisc-LM-noID-06.jpg

http://www.capcomespace.net/dossiers/espace_US/apollo/vaisseaux/lunar_module/LM%20plant%205%20construction%2004.JPG
 

Quote

I see it being used on the outer covering and wrapping.  Not the actual structural integrity.  Stop lying.

Curious that a space agency would secure together the outer walls of a spacecraft with tape of all things. One would think that the outer walls would be somewhat important.

  They are important.  They're also thin, light, flexible, and can be easily held on or together with a minimal amount of material, and easily moved to get to the storage areas inside.