At sceptimatic's request...

Sorry I was wrong I was flying off on the wrong tangent I thought we were discussing the return to the command module after the lunar visit. Remind me not to come on here after no sleep. So sorry - carry on.

It's ok, I knew that's what you were on about, that's why I clarified it, just so we are all clear on it all.

Quote from: glokta on February 25, 2014, 07:34:36 AM

Sorry I was wrong I was flying off on the wrong tangent I thought we were discussing the return to the command module after the lunar visit. Remind me not to come on here after no sleep. So sorry - carry on.

It's ok, I knew that's what you were on about, that's why I clarified it, just so we are all clear on it all.

wow look at us being all respectful to eachother. This debate may have legs yet!

Ok, so I'll explain it all and see if it all makes sense to you all. Now bear in mind, I'm not after a tit for tat dig fest, I just want you all to understand just what has to happen for all these missions to have succeeded.

First of all, as we know, the two stages of the rocket, jettison. Fair enough, they can have that bit.
 Next, the lunar module has to jettison whilst still inside the rocket casing. So there's 3 separations right there.
Next is the command and service module to be separated from the escape rocket at the top, so now we have 4 separations. Fair enough?
Now all that in itself is getting to be the stuff of magic...but let's roll on.

You see! The escape rockets' purpose was to ignite and drag the command module cone away from the rocket in the event of a failure, either before launch or just after. How in the hell this would be achieved, is anyones guess.
Ok, moving on:

This very same escape rocket still has to jettison away from the command module cone without taking it with it, once in orbit.  How this is done, is another piece of magic. All of it has to be explosive bolts right?
Now here's the key:

The lunar lander has been jettisoned INSIDE the rocket shell casing, so it cannot be under any directional force, as it's folded up and secure.
The command module, now minus it's escape rocket top has to go and catch the encased lander and dock with it. Now remember! The lander is free flying or floating or whatever you want to call it and it's under no directional control so theoretically it could spin or twist or anything after jettison. The video shows otherwise...BUT! I ask you!

Somehow, it's being videod from somewhere in the command cone. Through an angled window? Maybe?
So now, it has to dock with the lander still inside this rocket shell. Remember this, it's important.

Ok, so it docks! Now then! We can assume sensibly that the lander is not simply sloshing about inside this rocket casing. I mean, it's been sitting vertical as the rocket launched so it has to be secured from the inside of the rocket shell.
The question is! How does it release to allow the command module to undock it and get it out of that rocket casing?
Do you see the amount of unreal stuff that's required and this is before they even set off for the moon.
I mean, does the command module just pop the lander out like pushing a cork through a tube or pulling it out? And what release mechanism allows the lander to un-anchor, plus who is doing it?

That, folks, is before they do anything other than look at the moon. Does anyone really believe that would be plausible today, let alone in 1969?...Seriously be honest, don't just say, " well it must be, because they did it 6 times."
Have a serious think about it.

Even allowing for all that magic, they then travel to the moon, un-dock the lander and about turn it to drop down to the moon.
The lander then has to split apart by once again, explosive bolts to release the top part to fly back up and catch the command module,then once again, dock.

Once that feat is done. The command module undocks the top part of the lander and heads back to Earth, then jettisons the service part of the module to leave the cone to free fall through the atmosphere without tumbling or anything and then somehow jettison the lid to then jettison the parachutes to arrest the fall and splash into the sea.

SERIOUSLY? 

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 25, 2014, 08:12:09 AM

Quote from: glokta on February 25, 2014, 07:34:36 AM

Sorry I was wrong I was flying off on the wrong tangent I thought we were discussing the return to the command module after the lunar visit. Remind me not to come on here after no sleep. So sorry - carry on.

It's ok, I knew that's what you were on about, that's why I clarified it, just so we are all clear on it all.

wow look at us being all respectful to eachother. This debate may have legs yet!

You'll find that I'll respect those that respect me. I'm not here for a dick measuring contest. Just to find the truth or explore what is passed off as the truth.

The rocket takes off and soon it
releases it's first stage, then the second
stage. After that, it releases the Lunar
lander, then the command module,
whilst also having to release the
escape rocket perched on the top of the command module cone that we
see as a point on top of the rocket. Once this is all done, the command
module chases after the lunar lander
that is housed inside the rocket casing
and docks with it, then off to the moon
they go.

Almost right, the command module ir released first, does a 180 and docks with the lander which is still inside the final stage, then both leave together.

Quote

The rocket takes off and soon it
releases it's first stage, then the second
stage. After that, it releases the Lunar
lander, then the command module,
whilst also having to release the
escape rocket perched on the top of the command module cone that we
see as a point on top of the rocket. Once this is all done, the command
module chases after the lunar lander
that is housed inside the rocket casing
and docks with it, then off to the moon
they go.

Almost right, the command module ir released first, does a 180 and docks with the lander which is still inside the final stage, then both leave together.

If there are only two things left to separate, then it's either, or.
Do you believe that is plausible and if so, can you hazard a guess how the lander was released from it's casing?

Ok, so I'll explain it all and see if it all makes sense to you all. Now bear in mind, I'm not after a tit for tat dig fest, I just want you all to understand just what has to happen for all these missions to have succeeded.

First of all, as we know, the two stages of the rocket, jettison. Fair enough, they can have that bit.
 Next, the lunar module has to jettison whilst still inside the rocket casing. So there's 3 separations right there.
Next is the command and service module to be separated from the escape rocket at the top, so now we have 4 separations. Fair enough?
Now all that in itself is getting to be the stuff of magic...but let's roll on.

You see! The escape rockets' purpose was to ignite and drag the command module cone away from the rocket in the event of a failure, either before launch or just after. How in the hell this would be achieved, is anyones guess.
Ok, moving on:

This very same escape rocket still has to jettison away from the command module cone without taking it with it, once in orbit.  How this is done, is another piece of magic. All of it has to be explosive bolts right?
Now here's the key:

The lunar lander has been jettisoned INSIDE the rocket shell casing, so it cannot be under any directional force, as it's folded up and secure.
The command module, now minus it's escape rocket top has to go and catch the encased lander and dock with it. Now remember! The lander is free flying or floating or whatever you want to call it and it's under no directional control so theoretically it could spin or twist or anything after jettison. The video shows otherwise...BUT! I ask you!

Somehow, it's being videod from somewhere in the command cone. Through an angled window? Maybe?
So now, it has to dock with the lander still inside this rocket shell. Remember this, it's important.

Ok, so it docks! Now then! We can assume sensibly that the lander is not simply sloshing about inside this rocket casing. I mean, it's been sitting vertical as the rocket launched so it has to be secured from the inside of the rocket shell.
The question is! How does it release to allow the command module to undock it and get it out of that rocket casing?
Do you see the amount of unreal stuff that's required and this is before they even set off for the moon.
I mean, does the command module just pop the lander out like pushing a cork through a tube or pulling it out? And what release mechanism allows the lander to un-anchor, plus who is doing it?

That, folks, is before they do anything other than look at the moon. Does anyone really believe that would be plausible today, let alone in 1969?...Seriously be honest, don't just say, " well it must be, because they did it 6 times."
Have a serious think about it.

Even allowing for all that magic, they then travel to the moon, un-dock the lander and about turn it to drop down to the moon.
The lander then has to split apart by once again, explosive bolts to release the top part to fly back up and catch the command module,then once again, dock.

Once that feat is done. The command module undocks the top part of the lander and heads back to Earth, then jettisons the service part of the module to leave the cone to free fall through the atmosphere without tumbling or anything and then somehow jettison the lid to then jettison the parachutes to arrest the fall and splash into the sea.

SERIOUSLY? 

The casting you talk about is 4 large pieces that are jettison once in orbit. The first burn will expand the orbit apogee to the moon. After that the command module and service module disconnect from the LEM. The LEM is not just floating in space it is attached the thirst stage on the Saturn V rocket.  The service module with the command module makes a 180 degree turn to rendezvous with the LEM. Then the LEM is disconnected from the third stage rocket. And off they go. Look at this. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/moon-mars/4317016

It gets more amazing as it goes. All in 1969. Even god himself would have trouble sorting through that load of nonsense.

The escape rockets' purpose
was to ignite and drag the command
module cone away from the rocket in
the event of a failure, either before
launch or just after. How in the hell this
would be achieved, is anyones guess.

The subsystem is activated
automatically by the emergency
detection system in the first 100
seconds or manually by the astronauts
at any time from the pad to jettison
altitude. With the Saturn V, the subsystem is jettisoned at about
295,000 feet, or about 30 seconds
after ignition of the second stage; with
the Saturn IB, the subsystem is
jettisoned at about 275,000 feet,
about 20 seconds after second stage ignition. After receiving an about signal, the
booster is cut off (after 40 seconds of
flight), the CM-SM separation charges
fired, and the launch escape motor
ignited. The launch escape motor lifts
the CM and the pitch control motor (used only at low altitudes) directs the
flight path off to the side. http://www.apollosaturn.com/asnr/escape.htm

This very same escape rocket still has
to jettison away from the command
module cone without taking it with it,
once in orbit.  How this is done, is
another piece of magic. All of it has to
be explosive bolts right?

See above, but yes seperation charges.

The command module, now minus it's
escape rocket top has to go and catch the encased lander and dock with it.
Now remember! The lander is free
flying or floating or whatever you
want to call it and it's under no
directional control so theoretically it
could spin or twist or anything after jettison.

It could have fallen apart or or any manner of things, but it didn't as the video showed.

Somehow, it's being videod from
somewhere in the command cone.

yes

How does it release to
allow the command module to undock
it and get it out of that rocket casing?

The Lunar Module was connected to the SLA at four points around the
lower panels. After the astronauts
docked the CSM to the LM, they blew
charges to separate those
connections and a guillotine severed
the LM to Instrument Unit umbilical. After the charges fired, springs
pushed the LM away from the S-IVB and the astronauts were free to
continue their trip to the Moon. (look on wiki there are some links to more detailed documents).

I've got to say I'm disappointed - this isn't a piece of evidence as such, more a very long winded way of saying "look at the whole apollo 11 mission - how did they do it ? Is it magic or something? I dont believe it."

I've got to say I'm disappointed - this isn't a piece of evidence as such, more a very long winded way of saying "look at the whole apollo 11 mission - how did they do it ? Is it magic or something? I dont believe it."

I wouldn't expect you to be anything but disappointed. I use the term magic, because that's what it is.
Guillotines to sever the LM and detonations and what not. The thing is coated in tin foil.
I'd love to come to your house as a salesman, I believe I could sell you a flying sky scraper. 

This thread sucks massive monkey balls.   

Have a look at this. It's an engine from one of the Apollo missions over 40 years ago. This must prove it happened, eh?

The beauty about these type of engines is, they can fall from space and crash into the ocean... stay intact for 40 years and must be coated in a special anti moss and crustacean formula. Those N.A.S.A geniuses never cease to amaze, do they. 

This thread sucks massive monkey balls.   

Nobody's forcing you to be part of it. It's there if you want to contribute but you aren't forced.

Here, have a look at this, we can all do with a really good chuckle now and again, can't we? Remember people; this is your tax dollars at work and the N.A.S.A genius behind spending them.


#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Apollo's strange rendezvous and docking

The prgress of N.A.S.A and the space program has really come on leaps and bounds since the 50's, hasn't it?

Why don't you all decide how clever we are today compared to the genius of yesteryear. 

http://www.youtube.com/user/APOLLOREALITY?feature=watch

Have a look at this. It's an engine from one of the Apollo missions over 40 years ago. This must prove it happened, eh?

The beauty about these type of engines is, they can fall from space and crash into the ocean... stay intact for 40 years and must be coated in a special anti moss and crustacean formula. Those N.A.S.A geniuses never cease to amaze, do they. 

Are we denying the rockets even launched now? Ever heard the phrase what goes up must come down? If nasa faked even the launches why not just say the rockets were lost at sea rather than risking such a sharp detective such as yourself exposing them?

The beauty about these type of engines is, they can fall from space and crash into the ocean... stay intact for 40 years and must be coated in a special anti moss and crustacean formula. Those N.A.S.A geniuses never cease to amaze, do they. 

Moss?

Anyway, the photo is from after they cleaned it.  Here is a photo of a thrust chamber whilst still on the sea bed:



NASA didn't even recover these engines, Jeff Bezos did:

Amazon.com founder, billionaire Jeff Bezos of his expedition to recover the Apollo 11 F-1 rocket engine. "We’ve seen an underwater wonderland – an incredible sculpture garden of twisted F-1 engines that tells the story of a fiery and violent end, one that serves testament to the Apollo program. We photographed many beautiful objects in situ and have now recovered many prime pieces. Each piece we bring on deck conjures for me the thousands of engineers who worked together back then to do what for all time had been thought surely impossible."

If there was no Apollo program, how do you think the engine got down there in the first place?

Can you see anything similar about these two pictures?

Here, have a look at this, we can all do with a really good chuckle now and again, can't we? Remember people; this is your tax dollars at work and the N.A.S.A genius behind spending them.


#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Apollo's strange rendezvous and docking

wow small and precise movements. It's almost like they designed a system for small adjustments needed to manoeuvre to docking position.

A reaction control system (RCS) is a spacecraft system which uses thrusters to provide attitude control, and sometimes translation. Use of diverted engine thrust to provide
stable attitude control of a short-or-
vertical takeoff and landing aircraft,
below conventional winged flight
speeds, such as the Harrier "jump jet", may also be referred to as a reaction control system. An RCS is capable of providing small
amounts of thrust in any desired direction or combination of
directions. An RCS is also capable of
providing torque to allow control of rotation (roll, pitch, and yaw).

Here, have a look at this, we can all do with a really good chuckle now and again, can't we? Remember people; this is your tax dollars at work and the N.A.S.A genius behind spending them.


#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Apollo's strange rendezvous and docking

It is pretty obvious you don't know much about space vehicles and how they are filmed. Docking took more than 10 minutes of the video you are showing. They speed it up to show the docking as it was done. Here is the true speed of a docking. " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 25, 2014, 10:22:39 AM

Here, have a look at this, we can all do with a really good chuckle now and again, can't we? Remember people; this is your tax dollars at work and the N.A.S.A genius behind spending them.


#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Apollo's strange rendezvous and docking

It is pretty obvious you don't know much about space vehicles and how they are filmed. Docking took more than 10 minutes of the video you are showing. They speed it up to show the docking as it was done. Here is the true speed of a docking. " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Fantastic! If you keep showing me these, I'll probably believe it was all real. 

Can you see anything similar about these two pictures?

Hey, here's a video of them recovering one of the engines:

#t=56" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">#t=56

Did you know that in 1971, Apollo 14's computer malfunctioned. It was going to abort the mission when they were in space. 'The computer onboard would have automatically done it', they said.

Luckily, in 1971, there was a computer programmer that tapped a few digits into his state of the art computer on Earth and sent up a new program for the Apollo 14 computer and re-programmed it not to abort.
These N.A.S.A geniuses just amaze me. It's a good job we have these clever people, because this was before internet or anything resembling even a Sinclair spectrum, lol.

Did you know that in 1971, Apollo 14's computer malfunctioned. It was going to abort the mission when they were in space. 'The computer onboard would have automatically done it', they said.

Luckily, in 1971, there was a computer programmer that tapped a few digits into his state of the art computer on Earth and sent up a new program for the Apollo 14 computer and re-programmed it not to abort.
These N.A.S.A geniuses just amaze me. It's a good job we have these clever people, because this was before internet or anything resembling even a Sinclair spectrum, lol.

Yes they did have few problem. With all the complex equipment it is expected to have something. Here is the report on it:

"After the LM separated from the C/SM, the LM's computer showed an ABORT signal, which was caused by a faulty switch. A software work around had to be developed quickly and loaded into the computer manually in order to have the LM descend to the surface."

The computer was used to mainly for the control and navigation systems. All real calculations were done on earth.

Luckily, in 1971, there was a computer programmer that tapped a few digits into his state of the art computer on Earth and sent up a new program for the Apollo 14 computer and re-programmed it not to abort.

Actually the modifications required were transmitted by voice communication and entered manualy in the lunar module. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/a14mr11.htm

This thread sucks massive monkey balls.   

It sure does..

100 years ago he'd have denied the invention of the aeroplane, calling it evil magic..

Wow.  It is amazing!  This "car" that I heard of must not be real!!!
I mean first you turn a small key and the engine magically starts!! I mean how does something so small get something so large going?  Must be magic!!!
Then there is this magic pedal inside can tell the wheels to start turning!!!!
But that isn't the most amazing thing! There is a lever that tells the wheels which way to turn!! Forwards AND backwards!!!!!!
It gets even better!  There is a "steering" wheel that spontaneously turns the front wheels to, get this, change directions left or right.
I mean it is so fantastic that there is no way that it can be real!!!!

That is pretty much how your argument against space travel is.

Also, tell me, honestly, who is more indoctrinated/brainwashed?
The guy willing to look at evidence contrary to his beliefs and give a well written and thought out explination why the evidence doesn't support the claim
or
The guy who adamantly states there is no way to get him to change his mind on the subject no matter what evidence is presented.

Did you know that in 1971, Apollo 14's computer malfunctioned. It was going to abort the mission when they were in space. 'The computer onboard would have automatically done it', they said.

Luckily, in 1971, there was a computer programmer that tapped a few digits into his state of the art computer on Earth and sent up a new program for the Apollo 14 computer and re-programmed it not to abort.
These N.A.S.A geniuses just amaze me. It's a good job we have these clever people, because this was before internet or anything resembling even a Sinclair spectrum, lol.

Mate, you have some real problems.. that thing between your ears is not working properly.. is it drugs?

Wow.  It is amazing!  This "car" that I heard of must not be real!!!
I mean first you turn a small key and the engine magically starts!! I mean how does something so small get something so large going?  Must be magic!!!
Then there is this magic pedal inside can tell the wheels to start turning!!!!
But that isn't the most amazing thing! There is a lever that tells the wheels which way to turn!! Forwards AND backwards!!!!!!
It gets even better!  There is a "steering" wheel that spontaneously turns the front wheels to, get this, change directions left or right.
I mean it is so fantastic that there is no way that it can be real!!!!

That is pretty much how your argument against space travel is.

Also, tell me, honestly, who is more indoctrinated/brainwashed?
The guy willing to look at evidence contrary to his beliefs and give a well written and thought out explination why the evidence doesn't support the claim
or
The guy who adamantly states there is no way to get him to change his mind on the subject no matter what evidence is presented.

If you recall. I did say that you would become frustrated and go into a frenzy. This is normal for shills, so don't think you are off the grid.