NASA 'lies'

You're asking for times when a well funded agency admitted to lying?
Or
When authorities admitted NASA lied?

There are two press conferences you might want to look at, the apollo11 press conference where they seem like they just got buttfucked,rather than returning from the most amazing mission never.

you mean the tiny part of the press conference that hoaxies cherry-pick because the rest doesn't fit the description?  And they forget that this conference was a full week after they go back and had been stuck in quarantine away from their families and at that point just wanted to see their wives and children?  There are plenty of photos and videos of them while still in quarantine and after the conference being jovial and the opposite of the small clip hoaxies like to cherry-pick but I doubt many hoaxies even know about them.  Very few hoaxies know anything about Apollo that isn't presented in a youtube video.

hoaxies... hoaxies... hoaxies... hoaxies...

Lol at your psychic driving of the word 'hoaxies' you tool.

every single authority in physics has to lie about this law.

It takes about 5 minutes of googling to find respected experts on physics education describing NASA's interpretation of N3 as 'wrong', for precisely the reasons I stated.

I'm looking at one now...

And no, I won't tell you where it is.

NASA never admits its lies, they just make the lie an industry standard. For example, if NASA says that they have a satellite in polar orbit, then everyone believes that they have a satellite in polar orbit. No need to prove this claim or anything, it just becomes "true."

It has been proven! You can SEE satellites, you total dingbat! The ISS is big enough that you can see its shape through a telescope. NASA don't have to serve up proof on a plate when there is an open buffet the whole world can partake in.
 

Quote from: Ex-Globe on June 05, 2016, 01:07:05 AM

You're asking for times when a well funded agency admitted to lying?
Or
When authorities admitted NASA lied?

I'm asking for examples of verified, substantiated lies, either from admission or from reputable third party evidence.

Quote from: Ex-Globe on June 05, 2016, 01:07:05 AM

There are two press conferences you might want to look at, the apollo11 press conference where they seem like they just got buttfucked,rather than returning from the most amazing mission never.
And the mars Rover press conference where the Elvis haired lead engineer can't answer any of the crowds questions

I'm guessing you mean " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">this and " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">this? What lies do you think these footages substantiate?

Edit: fixed links.

Latest example:

100% Lie, No doubt, No-Fence riding, No Excuses, No doublespeak,



Annnnnd, you're done.

That would be convincing, if there was no other explanation for it.
Unfortunately for the tinfoil hat brigade, there is a very simple and mundane explanation for all of it.
The file may well have been created in 2012, but that doesn't tell you anything at all about what image was shown in the file. It's probable that the file which was created was a blank template of a standardised size and resolution, so that images of any kind could be pasted in there and be made ready for serving up on their website at the right size and quality. I use something exactly like that for making CD sleeves - the template was made in 2013 and I just drop new image layers in to change the pictures. But if you look at the created date of a sleeve I made two weeks ago, you'll see December 2013 - OMG, HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE!!!! DINOSAUR NEIL MUST BE LYING!!!
As for the supposed 5 hour editing time? There is no evidence that it was being edited for 5 hours, merely that 5 hours elapsed between it being opened and it being saved. The person could have opened it and then dealt with some of the other tasks his job entails before saving it later on. To try and use that as "proof" of image tampering is comical.
His comments about the compression being too much for a level 6 JPG are irrelevant - it's known that New Horizons sent back compressed data initially, which is why we got pictures relatively quickly, but also why it will take months to get all the high quality data back from it. The Dutch moron should have done his homework.

Quote from: Kami on June 05, 2016, 04:44:40 AM

every single authority in physics has to lie about this law.

It takes about 5 minutes of googling to find respected experts on physics education describing NASA's interpretation of N3 as 'wrong', for precisely the reasons I stated.

I'm looking at one now...

And no, I won't tell you where it is.

Would you be so generous to present this source?

That would be convincing, if there was no other explanation for it.
Unfortunately for the tinfoil hat brigade, there is a very simple and mundane explanation for all of it.
The file may well have been created in 2012, but that doesn't tell you anything at all about what image was shown in the file. It's probable that the file which was created was a blank template of a standardised size and resolution, so that images of any kind could be pasted in there and be made ready for serving up on their website at the right size and quality. I use something exactly like that for making CD sleeves - the template was made in 2013 and I just drop new image layers in to change the pictures. But if you look at the created date of a sleeve I made two weeks ago, you'll see December 2013 - OMG, HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE!!!! DINOSAUR NEIL MUST BE LYING!!!
As for the supposed 5 hour editing time? There is no evidence that it was being edited for 5 hours, merely that 5 hours elapsed between it being opened and it being saved. The person could have opened it and then dealt with some of the other tasks his job entails before saving it later on. To try and use that as "proof" of image tampering is comical.
His comments about the compression being too much for a level 6 JPG are irrelevant - it's known that New Horizons sent back compressed data initially, which is why we got pictures relatively quickly, but also why it will take months to get all the high quality data back from it. The Dutch moron should have done his homework.

I actually agree with the 5hrs part.  Doesn't prove anything.  However your description of the file creation date is incorrect from my experience.  If you have a template file, and you drop new material in said file, then save that file as a new file, then it will have a new creation date.  If you are saying they drop new material in an old file, save, then use that file as the published source it means they have multiple old files they do this with.

If you can find me some of these that were published in the past with the exact date/time I will lend your theory some credibility.  Otherwise it's a lie.

edit:  obviously copying file also changes creation date.

Also, Dinosaur Niel, I just downloaded the pic for examination myself.  The date in question is the 'date taken'  Please explain that.

If you can find me some of these that were published in the past with the exact date/time I will lend your theory some credibility.  Otherwise it's a lie.

No, not being able to hand you evidence of something doesn't affect whether it's true or not. If I said I had a macaroni ready meal for lunch, but couldn't prove it because I didn't keep the box, does that mean I didn't have a macaroni ready meal for lunch? 
If NASA is really doing this fakery, then surely there'd be lots of these oddly dated files - which you are now claiming would be evidence that I was right and you were wrong. Make your mind up!

Also, Dinosaur Niel, I just downloaded the pic for examination myself.  The date in question is the 'date taken'  Please explain that.

It depends on how the EXIF data was read and written. To some programs, created/taken are the same thing. If you took a photo of today's newspaper, posted it on here, I took a screen capture and pasted it into a file from last week and then saved that file, what would the "date taken" say then, huh? What would it say? Did I just invent a time machine, or is there a more logical explanation?
Also, have the courtesy to spell my name correctly, it's written there in front of you.

Also, this would be yet another hoax requiring the input of quite a lot of people - but of course, ~Teh Conspiracy~ is still so super-secret that only 10 people in the world know about it, right? 

Would you be so generous to present this source?

Nope.

Same as I won't tell you the source of the physicist who says 'NASA notoriously has problems with Newton's 3rd Law'...

Or where the real aerospace engineers who regard NASA as a dirty word hang out...

Or where I got my data as to the true performance of the V2 rocket from.

When you scum vandalised a wikipedia article I cited, then tried to say I vandalised it myself, I knew that there were no depths to which you are not prepared to stoop.

So I will never, ever, make your snuffing out of the lights of truth easy for you again.

Now stfu & gtfo, thought-policing disinfo-scum.

Quote from: Kami on June 05, 2016, 10:42:45 AM

Would you be so generous to present this source?

Nope.

Same as I won't tell you the source of the physicist who says 'NASA notoriously has problems with Newton's 3rd Law'...

Or where the real aerospace engineers who regard NASA as a dirty word hang out...

Or where I got my data as to the true performance of the V2 rocket from.

When you scum vandalised a wikipedia article I cited, then tried to say I vandalised it myself, I knew that there were no depths to which you are not prepared to stoop.

So I will never, ever, make your snuffing out of the lights of truth easy for you again.

Now stfu & gtfo, thought-policing disinfo-scum.

Papa won't provide the source because it doesn't exist. Just like all the other evidence he apparently has that is concrete proof but won't actually present it because he knows it is all bollocks.

Quote from: Silicon on June 05, 2016, 10:56:10 AM

If you can find me some of these that were published in the past with the exact date/time I will lend your theory some credibility.  Otherwise it's a lie.

No, not being able to hand you evidence of something doesn't affect whether it's true or not. If I said I had a macaroni ready meal for lunch, but couldn't prove it because I didn't keep the box, does that mean I didn't have a macaroni ready meal for lunch? 
If NASA is really doing this fakery, then surely there'd be lots of these oddly dated files - which you are now claiming would be evidence that I was right and you were wrong. Make your mind up!

Quote from: Silicon on June 05, 2016, 11:40:51 AM

Also, Dinosaur Niel, I just downloaded the pic for examination myself.  The date in question is the 'date taken'  Please explain that.

It depends on how the EXIF data was read and written. To some programs, created/taken are the same thing. If you took a photo of today's newspaper, posted it on here, I took a screen capture and pasted it into a file from last week and then saved that file, what would the "date taken" say then, huh? What would it say? Did I just invent a time machine, or is there a more logical explanation?
Also, have the courtesy to spell my name correctly, it's written there in front of you.

So I think what you're trying to say is the people at NASA aren't liars, they're just not intelligent enough to understand the need to use or publish correct data.  Are you a supporter of inaccurate information Niel?

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on June 05, 2016, 01:10:58 PM

Quote from: Silicon on June 05, 2016, 10:56:10 AM

If you can find me some of these that were published in the past with the exact date/time I will lend your theory some credibility.  Otherwise it's a lie.

No, not being able to hand you evidence of something doesn't affect whether it's true or not. If I said I had a macaroni ready meal for lunch, but couldn't prove it because I didn't keep the box, does that mean I didn't have a macaroni ready meal for lunch? 
If NASA is really doing this fakery, then surely there'd be lots of these oddly dated files - which you are now claiming would be evidence that I was right and you were wrong. Make your mind up!

Quote from: Silicon on June 05, 2016, 11:40:51 AM

Also, Dinosaur Niel, I just downloaded the pic for examination myself.  The date in question is the 'date taken'  Please explain that.

It depends on how the EXIF data was read and written. To some programs, created/taken are the same thing. If you took a photo of today's newspaper, posted it on here, I took a screen capture and pasted it into a file from last week and then saved that file, what would the "date taken" say then, huh? What would it say? Did I just invent a time machine, or is there a more logical explanation?
Also, have the courtesy to spell my name correctly, it's written there in front of you.

So I think what you're trying to say is the people at NASA aren't liars, they're just not intelligent enough to understand the need to use or publish correct data.  Are you a supporter of inaccurate information Niel?

There is no "need" to ensure an obscure field in one individual file (which has no impact on its scientific value) is correct. You'll notice also from the Dutch Moron's video that it details the colour format as being RGB, which is not what is received from the spacecraft, but I don't see you screaming "fake!" over that. Or is it just that you didn't notice that?

Quote from: Silicon on June 05, 2016, 03:02:54 PM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on June 05, 2016, 01:10:58 PM

Quote from: Silicon on June 05, 2016, 10:56:10 AM

If you can find me some of these that were published in the past with the exact date/time I will lend your theory some credibility.  Otherwise it's a lie.

No, not being able to hand you evidence of something doesn't affect whether it's true or not. If I said I had a macaroni ready meal for lunch, but couldn't prove it because I didn't keep the box, does that mean I didn't have a macaroni ready meal for lunch? 
If NASA is really doing this fakery, then surely there'd be lots of these oddly dated files - which you are now claiming would be evidence that I was right and you were wrong. Make your mind up!

Quote from: Silicon on June 05, 2016, 11:40:51 AM

Also, Dinosaur Niel, I just downloaded the pic for examination myself.  The date in question is the 'date taken'  Please explain that.

It depends on how the EXIF data was read and written. To some programs, created/taken are the same thing. If you took a photo of today's newspaper, posted it on here, I took a screen capture and pasted it into a file from last week and then saved that file, what would the "date taken" say then, huh? What would it say? Did I just invent a time machine, or is there a more logical explanation?
Also, have the courtesy to spell my name correctly, it's written there in front of you.

So I think what you're trying to say is the people at NASA aren't liars, they're just not intelligent enough to understand the need to use or publish correct data.  Are you a supporter of inaccurate information Niel?

There is no "need" to ensure an obscure field in one individual file (which has no impact on its scientific value) is correct. You'll notice also from the Dutch Moron's video that it details the colour format as being RGB, which is not what is received from the spacecraft, but I don't see you screaming "fake!" over that. Or is it just that you didn't notice that?

So you're admitting they are publishing inaccurate information its just this press release and photo aren't really that important? Gotcha.

So you're admitting they are publishing inaccurate information its just this press release and photo aren't really that important? Gotcha.

Huh? Stop trying to make a semantic argument, it's the classic sign of a troll with nowhere to go. Your definition of "publishing inaccurate information" is stretching the truth beyond breaking point, because the photo is published (in other words presented for public consumption) with accompanying info stating that it was taken in 2015. Information which can only be found by examining non-visual data from a file is not "published" information, is it? That's like someone stealing something from a shop and then claiming it was "given" to them because nobody actively stopped them taking it.
Go home.

Papa won't provide the source because it doesn't exist.

It does & I'm reading it now: 'NASA is wrong' he says...

What's more, no-one in the comments section disagrees with him.

Lulzy stuff.

You REALLY want that information don't you?

Won't get it!

Now go vandalise a wiki-article you creepy thought-police scumbags.

Quite often on these boards it's asserted or implicated that NASA tells lies.

Does anyone have any specific, concrete examples of NASA lying? By this I mean examples either of NASA admitting to falsehood, or of there being generally and authoritatively accepted evidence that contradicts what NASA has said.

I'm not asking for conspiracy theory kind of stuff, or people's opinions. Just proper evidence. Ideally there would be citations, both for what NASA has claimed and also for the contradiction.

You are welcome to look through my posts here. The last couple of NASA's fairy tales that I met were

(i) Growing basil on the Moon - OMG!!!!!!! ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!

 

and

(ii) in 1968 NASA tested their lunar mission "heat shield". At the re-entry, it was disappearing at the rate of about 5 mm/s. The heat was so high they could not even record the temperature values. After 90 or so seconds of the re-entry the heat shield was burned through, the spaceship was burned through and the test had ended with a complete disaster. I could not find any reports about the successful testing of the heat shield before the Moon landing fairy tale, yet in 1969 they triumphantly "returned" from the Moon. How?

 
 

Please note I was not obsessed with the idea of catching NASA lying. Just met that stuff incidentally. If you're interested, dig yourself, and you'll find many examples like that. And I do not blame them. Life is life. Besides, if American taxpayers are willing to pay for such NASA activity and to be entertained like that, it is their free choice. It's just funny.
 
 

(ii) in 1968 NASA tested their lunar mission "heat shield". At the re-entry, it was disappearing at the rate of about 5 mm/s. The heat was so high they could not even record the temperature values. After 90 or so seconds of the re-entry the heat shield was burned through, the spaceship was burned through and the test had ended with a complete disaster. I could not find any reports about the successful testing of the heat shield before the Moon landing fairy tale, yet in 1969 they triumphantly "returned" from the Moon. How?

Well done for your tabloid style piece of misrepresentation. Firstly, your description of the test (I assume from this document: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19680021275.pdf) being a complete disaster is garbage. The test was a failure, but the causes of failure were fairly well understood and were the result of excessive turbulence and wind shear blowing off some of the protective char that was intended to remain in place. To say the heat was so high they could not record the temperature values is bollocks. Some of the thermocouples got hotter than their calibrated values or ceased to function, but there are whole graphs full of temperature data throughout the test in the document appendices.
Also, there were several other tests conducted which were successful - the fact that they don't come up as the top document when you Google "apollo heat shield test" was probably enough to put you off looking any further.

Also, Dinosaur Niel, I just downloaded the pic for examination myself.  The date in question is the 'date taken'  Please explain that.

what date was this taken please?


The answer is: ******5 years ago..... wow spooky******* Highlight to reveal

Quote from: Mainframes on June 05, 2016, 02:27:36 PM

Papa won't provide the source because it doesn't exist.

It does & I'm reading it now: 'NASA is wrong' he says...

What's more, no-one in the comments section disagrees with him.

Lulzy stuff.

You REALLY want that information don't you?

Won't get it!

Now go vandalise a wiki-article you creepy thought-police scumbags.

I have ran out of excuses for you Legba. I think you just might be an idiot...

Viewing your super duper secret "information". I had a dog that used to fart and wake herself up, then be in the state of confusion of what happened. I don't know why I thought of this dog out of no where while reading your "wisdom"

Quote from: Silicon on June 05, 2016, 03:43:47 PM

So you're admitting they are publishing inaccurate information its just this press release and photo aren't really that important? Gotcha.

Huh? Stop trying to make a semantic argument, it's the classic sign of a troll with nowhere to go. Your definition of "publishing inaccurate information" is stretching the truth beyond breaking point, because the photo is published (in other words presented for public consumption) with accompanying info stating that it was taken in 2015. Information which can only be found by examining non-visual data from a file is not "published" information, is it? That's like someone stealing something from a shop and then claiming it was "given" to them because nobody actively stopped them taking it.
Go home.

There is no "need" to ensure an obscure field in one individual file (which has no impact on its scientific value) is correct.

Do you remember writing this?  You already admitted there is no need to publish correct information, so there is no point in debating with you.  Go to some other forum and debate with people who don't care about facts, you'll do better there.

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on June 06, 2016, 12:37:59 PM

(ii) in 1968 NASA tested their lunar mission "heat shield". At the re-entry, it was disappearing at the rate of about 5 mm/s. The heat was so high they could not even record the temperature values. After 90 or so seconds of the re-entry the heat shield was burned through, the spaceship was burned through and the test had ended with a complete disaster. I could not find any reports about the successful testing of the heat shield before the Moon landing fairy tale, yet in 1969 they triumphantly "returned" from the Moon. How?

Well done for your tabloid style piece of misrepresentation. Firstly, your description of the test (I assume from this document: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19680021275.pdf) being a complete disaster is garbage. The test was a failure, but the causes of failure were fairly well understood and were the result of excessive turbulence and wind shear blowing off some of the protective char that was intended to remain in place. To say the heat was so high they could not record the temperature values is bollocks. Some of the thermocouples got hotter than their calibrated values or ceased to function, but there are whole graphs full of temperature data throughout the test in the document appendices.
Also, there were several other tests conducted which were successful - the fact that they don't come up as the top document when you Google "apollo heat shield test" was probably enough to put you off looking any further.

I meant NASA article of 1968 I mentioned earlied. Bro', if you're a human, not a malfunctioning bot, you'll be able to read my previous post about that heat shield test, with the quotations from the article. By the way, the article is very good, and I provided the link.

Why I doubt you're a human? Simply because you're apparently not able to read and/or understand the document you've pointed to. It clearly says:

"Apparently, a catastrophic failure of the heat-shield material occurred during the latter portion of the data period. However, this failure cannot
be related to the changing environmental conditions that were computed
for the hemispherical nose shape."

Sure, you might call that test a "catastrophic failure", not a "complete disaster", should you prefer.
 

Anyway, I am glad you're perfectly satisfied with the lunar basil story.
 
 
 

"Apparently, a catastrophic failure of the heat-shield material occurred during the latter portion of the data period. However, this failure cannot
be related to the changing environmental conditions that were computed
for the hemispherical nose shape."

Sure, you might call that test a "catastrophic failure", not a "complete disaster", should you prefer.

A catastrophic failure of the heat-shield is no catastrophic failure of the test. I am quite certain that very useful data was derived from this test which was used to improve heat-shields to make them work like they do today.

I have ran out of excuses for you Legba.

It's NASA that needs excuses, not me...

Luckily they got you & your disinfo-pals ready with a bucketful.

Anyhoo; NASA lie about Newton's 3rd Law...

They do it a lot, on purpose & as a matter of principle.

And it's common knowledge that they do so...

Oh yes it is!

And it's common knowledge that they do so...

Oh yes it is!

Anyone imagine Papa Legba speaking with a dothraki accent?

Just you & your sock-army I'm afraid.

And NASA still lie about Newton's 3rd Law.

And it is still common knowledge that they do so.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on June 06, 2016, 11:19:25 AM

Quote from: Silicon on June 05, 2016, 03:43:47 PM

So you're admitting they are publishing inaccurate information its just this press release and photo aren't really that important? Gotcha.

Huh? Stop trying to make a semantic argument, it's the classic sign of a troll with nowhere to go. Your definition of "publishing inaccurate information" is stretching the truth beyond breaking point, because the photo is published (in other words presented for public consumption) with accompanying info stating that it was taken in 2015. Information which can only be found by examining non-visual data from a file is not "published" information, is it? That's like someone stealing something from a shop and then claiming it was "given" to them because nobody actively stopped them taking it.
Go home.

Quote

There is no "need" to ensure an obscure field in one individual file (which has no impact on its scientific value) is correct.

Do you remember writing this?  You already admitted there is no need to publish correct information, so there is no point in debating with you.  Go to some other forum and debate with people who don't care about facts, you'll do better there.

There is no point in debating with you because you don't debate; you play the man, not the ball, and use the Jora tactic of going for semantics whenever you can. I did not admit what you say above, you are combining two things I said - out of context - and then stating the direct opposite of what I said regarding "publishing" information. Do you think anyone reading this is going to think you're correct? If you do, then you're of pretty low intelligence. People can read my posts as well as yours - did you realise that?
Regardless, I won't have to put up with any more of your drivel - you're going on my blocked list. Where you will be in good company with Papa Legba, sceptimatic, and various other twats.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on June 06, 2016, 02:31:36 PM

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on June 06, 2016, 12:37:59 PM

(ii) in 1968 NASA tested their lunar mission "heat shield". At the re-entry, it was disappearing at the rate of about 5 mm/s. The heat was so high they could not even record the temperature values. After 90 or so seconds of the re-entry the heat shield was burned through, the spaceship was burned through and the test had ended with a complete disaster. I could not find any reports about the successful testing of the heat shield before the Moon landing fairy tale, yet in 1969 they triumphantly "returned" from the Moon. How?

Well done for your tabloid style piece of misrepresentation. Firstly, your description of the test (I assume from this document: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19680021275.pdf) being a complete disaster is garbage. The test was a failure, but the causes of failure were fairly well understood and were the result of excessive turbulence and wind shear blowing off some of the protective char that was intended to remain in place. To say the heat was so high they could not record the temperature values is bollocks. Some of the thermocouples got hotter than their calibrated values or ceased to function, but there are whole graphs full of temperature data throughout the test in the document appendices.
Also, there were several other tests conducted which were successful - the fact that they don't come up as the top document when you Google "apollo heat shield test" was probably enough to put you off looking any further.

I meant NASA article of 1968 I mentioned earlied. Bro', if you're a human, not a malfunctioning bot, you'll be able to read my previous post about that heat shield test, with the quotations from the article. By the way, the article is very good, and I provided the link.

Why I doubt you're a human? Simply because you're apparently not able to read and/or understand the document you've pointed to. It clearly says:

"Apparently, a catastrophic failure of the heat-shield material occurred during the latter portion of the data period. However, this failure cannot
be related to the changing environmental conditions that were computed
for the hemispherical nose shape."

Sure, you might call that test a "catastrophic failure", not a "complete disaster", should you prefer.
 

Anyway, I am glad you're perfectly satisfied with the lunar basil story.
 
 
 

I didn't follow any links provided by you - I did my own research and went directly to the source material.
You reveal your ignorance here. A catastrophic failure in this context means a failure of the heat shield which would have resulted in danger to the capsule. The fact that you think this is interchangeable with "the whole test was a complete disaster" shows you either didn't read or didn't understand the details of that failure.
I imagine you also didn't read page 9 of the results which says that the heat shield did not remain hemispherical throughout the test, hence "this failure cannot be related to the changing environmental conditions that were computed for the hemispherical nose shape". In other words, if the aerodynamic effects were as originally predicted, then the shield shoudn't have failed. However, they weren't, because of uneven surface recession, so the turbulence exceeded that which was predicted. Clear enough for you?
I will quote here from the conclusion: "Although many uncertainties are present in the analysis, the removal of the char layer by aerodynamic shear was believed to be the controlling mechanism for surface recession."

I never read anything about lunar basil.

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on June 06, 2016, 06:45:44 PM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on June 06, 2016, 02:31:36 PM

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on June 06, 2016, 12:37:59 PM

(ii) in 1968 NASA tested their lunar mission "heat shield". At the re-entry, it was disappearing at the rate of about 5 mm/s. The heat was so high they could not even record the temperature values. After 90 or so seconds of the re-entry the heat shield was burned through, the spaceship was burned through and the test had ended with a complete disaster. I could not find any reports about the successful testing of the heat shield before the Moon landing fairy tale, yet in 1969 they triumphantly "returned" from the Moon. How?

Well done for your tabloid style piece of misrepresentation. Firstly, your description of the test (I assume from this document: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19680021275.pdf) being a complete disaster is garbage. The test was a failure, but the causes of failure were fairly well understood and were the result of excessive turbulence and wind shear blowing off some of the protective char that was intended to remain in place. To say the heat was so high they could not record the temperature values is bollocks. Some of the thermocouples got hotter than their calibrated values or ceased to function, but there are whole graphs full of temperature data throughout the test in the document appendices.
Also, there were several other tests conducted which were successful - the fact that they don't come up as the top document when you Google "apollo heat shield test" was probably enough to put you off looking any further.

I meant NASA article of 1968 I mentioned earlied. Bro', if you're a human, not a malfunctioning bot, you'll be able to read my previous post about that heat shield test, with the quotations from the article. By the way, the article is very good, and I provided the link.

Why I doubt you're a human? Simply because you're apparently not able to read and/or understand the document you've pointed to. It clearly says:

"Apparently, a catastrophic failure of the heat-shield material occurred during the latter portion of the data period. However, this failure cannot
be related to the changing environmental conditions that were computed
for the hemispherical nose shape."

Sure, you might call that test a "catastrophic failure", not a "complete disaster", should you prefer.
 

Anyway, I am glad you're perfectly satisfied with the lunar basil story.
 
 
 

I didn't follow any links provided by you - I did my own research and went directly to the source material.
You reveal your ignorance here. A catastrophic failure in this context means a failure of the heat shield which would have resulted in danger to the capsule. The fact that you think this is interchangeable with "the whole test was a complete disaster" shows you either didn't read or didn't understand the details of that failure.
I imagine you also didn't read page 9 of the results which says that the heat shield did not remain hemispherical throughout the test, hence "this failure cannot be related to the changing environmental conditions that were computed for the hemispherical nose shape". In other words, if the aerodynamic effects were as originally predicted, then the shield shoudn't have failed. However, they weren't, because of uneven surface recession, so the turbulence exceeded that which was predicted. Clear enough for you?
I will quote here from the conclusion: "Although many uncertainties are present in the analysis, the removal of the char layer by aerodynamic shear was believed to be the controlling mechanism for surface recession."

I never read anything about lunar basil.

C'mon, man. Let's be serious. (And Kami, too.) I myself did not expect the situation with that freaking "heat shield" was so bad. They had a hole in their spaceship in about 90 seconds. In August 1968, 10 months or so before the launch "to the Moon". Just imagine, 11,000 C, may be higher. Twice the temperature of the Sun, may be higher.

"At 95.5 seconds, the thermocouple on the bulkhead inside the model exceeded the range for which it was calibrated. This was probably due to hot gases entering the model interior through a hole burned through the inconel skin of the nose cap."


What they could do?

Nothing.

There is no material that could sustain 11,000 C plasma a few inches away, for a few minutes necessary for the "re-entry". They could not even collect the temperature distribution data - do you know why? Read the article, again.

Because their sensors evaporated faster then they could send the data, that's why.

Once again, if you did not get it - TWICE THE TEMPERATURE OF THE SUN.

What can you do - NOTHING. Just watch the sensors evaporating. What else? It is not a funny freaking game with the gullible Americans ready to swallow anything from NASA. IT'S REAL. TWICE THE TEMPERATURE OF THE SUN. OMG!!!!!

Now.

They had about 10 months before the launch to the Moon. They might build the spaceship in a month or two. They might test it for a month or two. They might train the crew in a month or two, plus a month or two to fix the glitches. What is left? Maximum, 6 months.

So, show me the NASA reports on successful heat shield testings at 11,000 m/s and 11,000 K dated up to 6 months from August, 1968. THERE IS NONE. NONE! NONE!!!

NONE!!!!!!

That is why they brought the sand from Arizona or wherever - to Hollywood film studio or wherever, - and started to make their footage about "Apollo missions". Here, on Earth, of course. There was no flight to the Moon, don't you understand that?

That's how 20B$ (1969) turned into

BS

 

I never read anything about lunar basil.

Enjoy:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66674.0