NASA 'lies'

Well, it depends on what data you're looking for. I hoped to find the real data on the temperature patterns, but the test generated none, for the sensors failed due to extreme heat.

Apart from the whole graphfuls of data that are in the appendix, which I already pointed out to you.
You really don't understand when you've been beaten, do you?

You really don't understand when you've been beaten, do you?

LOL!!!

Read this:

Stagnation point is where the bow shock wave is, and also where the massive amount of heat that you talk about sits. Between the stagnation point and the ablative material are gasses much cooler than the heat at the stagnation point.

Not only do you shills not know when you've been beaten, you don't even know how or why...

That's what you get for copy-pasting NASA Lies as if you thought of them yourselves.

You poor shit-at-your-shit-job bastards.

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on June 07, 2016, 04:33:09 PM

So, just show me the NASA report about successful testing of their heat shield at 11,000 m/s re-entry, dated from August 1968 to May 1969

You're probably thinking about the unmanned Apollo 4 mission, conducted on Nov. 9, 1967.
https://archive.org/details/nasa_techdoc_19900066482

The tl;dr version:

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_4#Objectives

The mission was the first launch from the Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39, specifically built for the Saturn V. Since this was an all-up test, it was the S-IC first stage and S-II second stage's first launch. It would also be the first time that the S-IVB third stage would be restarted in Earth orbit, and the first time that the Apollo spacecraft would reenter the Earth's atmosphere at the speed of a lunar return trajectory.

The unmanned Apollo 6 (April 4, 1968) also tested reentry, but only from about 10,000 m/s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_6#Orbit

Granted, neither flight was in your arbitrary time range, but I think that was probably just you showing off your ignorance yet again.

So, dear markjo, first you post irrelevant data. Then, you openly admit their irrelevance. After which you make your conclusion about me showing off my ignorance yet again.

Initially, I wanted to answer: "Aren't you a moron?"

Let's put it mildly:

Are you all right, dear markjo?
 

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on June 08, 2016, 05:35:39 PM

Quote from: Kami on June 07, 2016, 03:36:16 AM

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

"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.

Dear Kami, what an interesting style you have. Mild, rhythmic, pleasant, elegant, well-balanced, graceful... Too good for a... Wait a minute... Whom I see and hear from behind the lines is a... young lady!
 
Unless I am mistaken, of course...
 
 

Anyway, that hole in the spaceship per se normally would not mean much. They were testing the new material, it failed, so what. The problem is that there are no further reports about successful 11,000 m/s Apollo module re-entry tests before the Moon story and they did not have much time before the launch... so, how would they return if they were walking on the Moon? Or... were they?
 

"I am quite certain that very useful data was derived from this test..."
Well, it depends on what data you're looking for. I hoped to find the real data on the temperature patterns, but the test generated none, for the sensors failed due to extreme heat.

Well.. thank you.. i guess?
Although I have to disappoint you, I am no young lady 
The reason for this style might be that I have to put some thought to my grammar as I am no native speaker..

as for the test, MaNaeSWolf and markjo posted some documents, though I personally did not have the time to read them (except for the tldr, of course)

Edit: even a negative Test result can be useful. At least you know you need to improve your ablative Material. Also, i think I remember i read that only some of the Sensors had failed

"Although I have to disappoint you, I am no young lady  "
I've already figured that out and am not disappointed. I mean, my impression is that the style clearly shows a powerful and beneficial feminine influence. So, the simplest yet plausible explanation would be that the author is constantly thinking about the object of his admiration and sometimes concentrates on her with such an ardour that the girl almost materializes, - which, naturally, reflects on the style of his writing. Though this is a very preliminary hypothesis, of course...
 

"Also, i think I remember i read that only some of the Sensors had failed"

Nope. All of them subdued to the utmost impetuosity of unimaginable heat:

"During the data period, it is conjectured, the heat-shield material was removed so rapidly that a sharp temperature gradient existed near the surface of the material. Therefore, the thermocouples embedded in the material showed no responses until the surface receded to their locations. Then their responses, as indicated on the thermocouple traces, were either a deflection beyond the full-scale calibration signal, or hash indicating a broken junction. As a result, no temperature histories in the material were obtained."

So, in August 1968 NASA had no real re-entry temperature data for the Apollo shield material. And no more tests before the launch to the Moon... How did they improve the material and how did they make the shield without knowing the temperatures it was supposed to protect from? How did they return from the Moon in 1969?
 

Are you all right, dear markjo?

He is pushing 100 years old and thinks the world is round.  Do you think he is alright?  He is lucky if he figures out how to turn his computer on.  lol

So, dear markjo, first you post irrelevant data. Then, you openly admit their irrelevance. After which you make your conclusion about me showing off my ignorance yet again.

What was so important about your arbitrary time frame for the heat shield tests?  The fact is that there were 2 unmanned test missions that tested the command module heat shield at or near lunar mission reentry speeds.  Does the fact that those tests happened before August 1968 invalidate them for some reason or other?

BTW, the manned Apollo 8 mission was in December of 1968, well within your arbitrary time frame.

So, in August 1968 NASA had no real re-entry temperature data for the Apollo shield material.

Incorrect.  I just told you that they had real world test data collected from the reentry of the Apollo 4 and Apollo 6 test flights.

Are you all right, dear markjo?
 

Still providing free uncalled-for psychoanalysis, I see. I hope you appreciate that I referred Papa Legba to your free service.
He seems to have some sort of OCD problem in that he goes into a near infinite loop of "copying and pasting" the same thing over and over whenever anyone disagrees with anything he says (which is all the time)!

But, as you well know I'm just a tyro in this and you practice it so often, so I sure Papa would benefit from your ministrations.

   Much appreciated.   

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on June 07, 2016, 03:44:18 PM

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on June 07, 2016, 03:18:21 PM

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

NONE!!!!!!

This is hysterical.
Within two minutes of firing up Google, I had found a summary of mission tests, including those of command modules in atmosphere - it looks like there were ten altogether. Within another two minutes, I had the technical reports from one of those missions in front of me, detailing that the heat shield test was successful.
It seems you're not even capable of using a simple search engine, so I will leave it to the good people of the forum to make up their own minds about whether there were indeed heat shield tests, or whether there were NONE!! NONE!! NONE!!! as you claim. They are free to look on Google as I did.
Good day, sir.

Well, I did not just look on Google, like you, I digged(sic) into that. Besides, it's not me. Wikipedia, for example, shows nothing within 6 months from the only real test that was performed.

If you still can not understand the situation:

it's freaking 11,000 degrees K. Or 19,340 degrees F.

So, just show me the NASA report about successful testing of their heat shield at 11,000 m/s re-entry, dated from August 1968 to May 1969,

 

Otherwise,

HOW DID THEY RETURN FROM THE MOON???

 

HOW DID THEY RETURN FROM THE MOON???
They were using an ablative heatshield (unlike the Shuttle), which kept they hot plasma from the vehicle by gradually burning away!
And, obviously they finally got it working. That is what the tests were for.

I think you're shouting. I think you must be getting a little emotional on this issue. This is not good for you blood pressure.

I could refer you to comeone who free psychiatric help (whether asked for of not). His name is Humble_Scientist.

Oops, I just noticed that you are this Humble_Scientist, seems you have lost a bit of that legendary humility - not that you have EVER shown any.
Maybe you could do with a name change to "The_Hypocritical_Humble_Scientist" - that's more like it!

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on June 09, 2016, 01:56:31 PM

Are you all right, dear markjo?

He is pushing 100 years old and thinks the world is round.  Do you think he is alright?  He is lucky if he figures out how to turn his computer on.  lol

Well, what's wrong with your computer, whenever you turn it on it spews out invective and garbage,
but then when we used to say in the "olden days" of computing, that computers were GIGO memories - Garbage In Garbage Out!

Quote from: Pongo on June 01, 2016, 06:31:48 AM

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."

Do you have any evidence that when NASA says they have a satellite in polar orbit, they don't?

Are you asking me to prove a negative? Come back when you've had a course in logic.

Quote from: Copper Knickers on June 01, 2016, 09:06:14 AM

Quote from: Pongo on June 01, 2016, 06:31:48 AM

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."

Do you have any evidence that when NASA says they have a satellite in polar orbit, they don't?

Are you asking me to prove a negative? Come back when you've had a course in logic.

Proving a negative is not always impossible. If I said: prove that yellow elephants do not exist, then you would be unable to do so. But if I said: prove that this specific elephant (while showing a picture or something like that) does not exist the way I describe it, it is possible. That's exactly what NASA does. They have datasheets about their polar satellites and there are even live-maps online, which show every satellite's position.

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on June 08, 2016, 05:35:39 PM

Well, it depends on what data you're looking for. I hoped to find the real data on the temperature patterns, but the test generated none, for the sensors failed due to extreme heat.

Apart from the whole graphfuls of data that are in the appendix, which I already pointed out to you.
You really don't understand when you've been beaten, do you?

"You really don't understand when you've been beaten, do you?"

You must be speaking to yourself, dear Dinosaur Neil...

 
 
Where are the real temperature data?
 

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on June 09, 2016, 01:56:31 PM

So, dear markjo, first you post irrelevant data. Then, you openly admit their irrelevance. After which you make your conclusion about me showing off my ignorance yet again.

What was so important about your arbitrary time frame for the heat shield tests?  The fact is that there were 2 unmanned test missions that tested the command module heat shield at or near lunar mission reentry speeds.  Does the fact that those tests happened before August 1968 invalidate them for some reason or other?

BTW, the manned Apollo 8 mission was in December of 1968, well within your arbitrary time frame.

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on June 09, 2016, 02:34:49 PM

So, in August 1968 NASA had no real re-entry temperature data for the Apollo shield material.

Incorrect.  I just told you that they had real world test data collected from the reentry of the Apollo 4 and Apollo 6 test flights.

"What was so important about your arbitrary time frame for the heat shield tests?" etc.

It's not mine. Just read the article, dear markjo. The NASA article says they were testing the material for the Apollo mission heatshield, in August 1968, at 11 km/s re-entry. They created the material for the test and do not mention testing it before, at 11 km/s. They mention only one earlier launch, but not with that material. Apparently, this is the beginning of the Apollo mission heat shield story time frame, correct?

As its end, I would rather choose the moment reasonably close to that launch to the Moon. Say, May 1969. 'Cause they must have had the heat shield ready, successfully tested at 11 km/s re-entry and installed before going to the Moon, correct? So, where are those successful test(s) data?

Or... Do you think they developed the Apollo heat shield after Apollo started to the Moon?
 

As its end, I would rather choose the moment reasonably close to that launch to the Moon. Say, May 1969. 'Cause they must have had the heat shield ready, successfully tested at 11 km/s re-entry and installed before going to the Moon, correct? So, where are those successful test(s) data?

Or... Do you think they developed the Apollo heat shield after Apollo started to the Moon?
 

Just because the "Not_so_Humble_non_Scientist" can't find a reference to something 47 years later proves it didn't happen - tell me another!


Some people with a little less agenda and who were around (in time if not location) are a little less sceptical!

Were you listening to the Sputnik "beeps" in October 1957? Radio HAMS had great fun listening in 20.007 MHz (if my memory serves me correctly) popping up right in time around the world. In know, you will claim that the Russians had planes  flying all over the world to fake it  not likely with the cold war at the time!

But, what about defending all the weaknesses of the alternative to the Globe
There are so many things it can't explain, without pure guesswork and "magic" that it's just a joke.

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on June 09, 2016, 01:56:31 PM

Are you all right, dear markjo?
 

Still providing free uncalled-for psychoanalysis, I see. I hope you appreciate that I referred Papa Legba to your free service.
He seems to have some sort of OCD problem in that he goes into a near infinite loop of "copying and pasting" the same thing over and over whenever anyone disagrees with anything he says (which is all the time)!

But, as you well know I'm just a tyro in this and you practice it so often, so I sure Papa would benefit from your ministrations.

   Much appreciated.   

Wow. My dear rabinoz, what happened to you? It sounds like you're writing from some kind of asylum. What are you talking about?

Look, man. Say, you've built a "spaceship" and tested it. During re-entry, at 11 km/s, the heat shield material failed and there was a hole in the spaceship. You do not have even the real temperature data. What would you do next?

As to Papa Legba, whose majestic yet vigorous style and zeal are truly remarkable. Possibly, Papa Legba would call the whole story somewhat like "NA$A's shpazeship heat shield"... though I must confess I could hardly imagine what that great man would have invented for such an occasion.
 

Quote from: rabinoz on June 09, 2016, 09:44:53 PM

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on June 09, 2016, 01:56:31 PM

Are you all right, dear markjo?
 

Still providing free uncalled-for psychoanalysis, I see. I hope you appreciate that I referred Papa Legba to your free service.
He seems to have some sort of OCD problem in that he goes into a near infinite loop of "copying and pasting" the same thing over and over whenever anyone disagrees with anything he says (which is all the time)!

But, as you well know I'm just a tyro in this and you practice it so often, so I sure Papa would benefit from your ministrations.

   Much appreciated.   

Wow. My dear rabinoz, what happened to you? It sounds like you're writing from some kind of asylum. What are you talking about?

Look, man. Say, you've built a "spaceship" and tested it. During re-entry, at 11 km/s, the heat shield material failed and there was a hole in the spaceship. You do not have even the real temperature data. What would you do next?

As to Papa Legba, whose majestic yet vigorous style and zeal are truly remarkable. Possibly, Papa Legba would call the whole story somewhat like "NA$A's shpazeship heat shield"... though I must confess I could hardly imagine what that great man would have invented for such an occasion.
 

You claim "Wow. My dear rabinoz, what happened to you? It sounds like you're writing from some kind of asylum. What are you talking about?"

And yes "Say, you've built a "spaceship" and tested it. During re-entry, at 11 km/s, the heat shield material failed and there was a hole in the spaceship. You do not have even the real temperature data. What would you do next?"

Of course I would do it again, but does the wonderful "Humble_Scientist" have any evidence that they did not do exactly that. Just because YOU can't find it 47 years later is not proof that it did not exist.

I suppose that when you lose your car keys (you do drive I suppose) and can't find them, that you assume that they never existed - great "Humble_Scientist" logic that.

It's a bit like saying that "If the Humble_Scientist can't find something, it never existed and must have been a fake".


And your wonderful sense of humour just keeps us entertained with:
"Papa Legba, whose majestic yet vigorous style and zeal are truly remarkable. Possibly, Papa Legba would call the whole story somewhat like "NA$A's shpazeship heat shield"... though I must confess I could hardly imagine what that great man would have invented for such an occasion."

Almost as hilarious as the rubbish that "great man" has "invented for" many of his posts, and all without the slightest help from other sources and references - now that's inventiveness - maybe not related to fact, but so what!

Quote from: markjo on June 09, 2016, 06:29:27 PM

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on June 09, 2016, 01:56:31 PM

So, dear markjo, first you post irrelevant data. Then, you openly admit their irrelevance. After which you make your conclusion about me showing off my ignorance yet again.

What was so important about your arbitrary time frame for the heat shield tests?  The fact is that there were 2 unmanned test missions that tested the command module heat shield at or near lunar mission reentry speeds.  Does the fact that those tests happened before August 1968 invalidate them for some reason or other?

BTW, the manned Apollo 8 mission was in December of 1968, well within your arbitrary time frame.

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on June 09, 2016, 02:34:49 PM

So, in August 1968 NASA had no real re-entry temperature data for the Apollo shield material.

Incorrect.  I just told you that they had real world test data collected from the reentry of the Apollo 4 and Apollo 6 test flights.

"What was so important about your arbitrary time frame for the heat shield tests?" etc.

It's not mine. Just read the article, dear markjo. The NASA article says they were testing the material for the Apollo mission heatshield, in August 1968, at 11 km/s re-entry.

Ummm...  No.  The report was published in August, 1968.  The test took place in October, 1965.

Did you even read the report beyond what you cherry picked out of it?

Maybe you had better take another look at it to refresh your memory.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19680021275.pdf

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on June 09, 2016, 01:02:51 PM

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on June 08, 2016, 05:35:39 PM

Well, it depends on what data you're looking for. I hoped to find the real data on the temperature patterns, but the test generated none, for the sensors failed due to extreme heat.

Apart from the whole graphfuls of data that are in the appendix, which I already pointed out to you.
You really don't understand when you've been beaten, do you?

"You really don't understand when you've been beaten, do you?"

You must be speaking to yourself, dear Dinosaur Neil...

 
 
Where are the real temperature data?
 

So you're saying that this document PROVES that NASA couldn't send a man to the moon, yet at the same time saying that some of the information presented within the document is false.
Right. OK.
 

Quote from: Copper Knickers on June 01, 2016, 09:06:14 AM

Quote from: Pongo on June 01, 2016, 06:31:48 AM

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."

Do you have any evidence that when NASA says they have a satellite in polar orbit, they don't?

Are you asking me to prove a negative? Come back when you've had a course in logic.

No, I'm not asking you to prove a negative. I'm asking you if you have any evidence that NASA has said they have a satellite in polar orbit when they don't. Implicitly, I'm also asking you to present such evidence. It seemed that implied in your original post was that this is one of the ways that NASA lies. If that wasn't your implication then fine, please clarify.

Ummm...  No.  The report was published in August, 1968.  The test took place in October, 1965.

Did you even read the report beyond what you cherry picked out of it?

Maybe you had better take another look at it to refresh your memory.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19680021275.pdf

Oh come on, you give the Not_very_Humble_Not_Much_of_a_Scientist a bit much credit.

Doesn't that report have sums and technical looking graph thingos in it? It's a bit much expecting him understand them!

Quote from: markjo on June 10, 2016, 08:43:03 PM

Ummm...  No.  The report was published in August, 1968.  The test took place in October, 1965.

Did you even read the report beyond what you cherry picked out of it?

Maybe you had better take another look at it to refresh your memory.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19680021275.pdf

Oh come on, you give the Not_very_Humble_Not_Much_of_a_Scientist a bit much credit.

Doesn't that report have sums and technical looking graph thingos in it? It's a bit much expecting him understand them!

I think that it's a bit much expecting him to read enough of the report to figure out that the data that he's referring to was collected almost 3 years earlier.

Quote from: rabinoz on June 11, 2016, 07:15:57 PM

Quote from: markjo on June 10, 2016, 08:43:03 PM

Ummm...  No.  The report was published in August, 1968.  The test took place in October, 1965.

Did you even read the report beyond what you cherry picked out of it?

Maybe you had better take another look at it to refresh your memory.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19680021275.pdf

Oh come on, you give the Not_very_Humble_Not_Much_of_a_Scientist a bit much credit.

Doesn't that report have sums and technical looking graph thingos in it? It's a bit much expecting him understand them!

I think that it's a bit much expecting him to read enough of the report to figure out that the data that he's referring to was collected almost 3 years earlier.

Remember papa Legba is his hero and he considers him a great scholar. So that should let you know what you are dealing with.

Humble seems like a nice enough person, just misguided, uneducated or both.

Wow. My dear rabinoz, what happened to you?

I happened to him.

I happened to all of them.

lol.

Anyhoo; NASA lies about Newton's 3rd Law inasmuch as it claims both forces can be created on the same object & still produce motion.

Simple stuff...

Now watch the custard pies fly as all the Clowns go nuts.

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on June 10, 2016, 07:08:40 PM

Wow. My dear rabinoz, what happened to you?

I happened to him.

I happened to all of them.

lol.

Anyhoo; NASA lies about Newton's 3rd Law inasmuch as it claims both forces can be created on the same object & still produce motion.

Simple stuff...

Now watch the custard pies fly as all the Clowns go nuts.

You happened to me? I don't see are after effects of this great happening!
And I never thought you had a sense of humour! Oh wait, you really think you are the Flat Earth Society's Prince on a White Charger riding to the rescue.

Sure, I've got a few scars, but they're from honest work, pick and shovel style, not from duelling with St Papa the Dragon.

You really should go for stand up comedy, might be more effective at that.

Still, I guess you are performing wonderfully in the eyes of your greatest admirer,

All of which mad ranting explains why NASA Lies about Newton's 3rd Law how, Geoff?

Perhaps you could explain in a mad ranting post in which you avoid the point whilst accusing me of mad ranting?

Or something?

As long as there's capering, clowning & custard pies I'll be happy anyhoo!

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on June 10, 2016, 06:29:11 PM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on June 09, 2016, 01:02:51 PM

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on June 08, 2016, 05:35:39 PM

Well, it depends on what data you're looking for. I hoped to find the real data on the temperature patterns, but the test generated none, for the sensors failed due to extreme heat.

Apart from the whole graphfuls of data that are in the appendix, which I already pointed out to you.
You really don't understand when you've been beaten, do you?

"You really don't understand when you've been beaten, do you?"

You must be speaking to yourself, dear Dinosaur Neil...

 
 
Where are the real temperature data?
 

So you're saying that this document PROVES that NASA couldn't send a man to the moon, yet at the same time saying that some of the information presented within the document is false.
Right. OK.
 

Dear Dinosaur Neil, it looks like you're suspecting me of some dark intentions. Perhaps, you're judging me by your own character. In fact, nope. Nothing of the sort. The article is very good and honest, as I've already said. Believe me, it's a scientific article, it surely can be trusted. I myself was writing scientific articles and I know how a good article looks. This one was written by good professionals, no doubt. Essentially, it says that in August 1968 NASA had no material for Apollo heat shield. Not only the shield, but even the material for it. The test catastrophically failed, that's it. They did not even have the temperature readings.

If, after that, you think they could send the man to the Moon and back, please enlighten me how did they do that. As far as I understand, without the heat shield it is impossible. Where are the data on their 11 km/s re-entry successful tests, of the material and of the shield?
 
 
 
 

I myself was writing scientific articles and I know how a good article looks. This one was written by good professionals, no doubt. Essentially, it says that in August 1968 NASA had no material for Apollo heat shield.

No, it doesn't say that at all.  The report was released in August, 1968, but the experiment that it describes occurred in October, 1965.

Quote from: rabinoz on June 11, 2016, 07:15:57 PM

Quote from: markjo on June 10, 2016, 08:43:03 PM

Ummm...  No.  The report was published in August, 1968.  The test took place in October, 1965.

Did you even read the report beyond what you cherry picked out of it?

Maybe you had better take another look at it to refresh your memory.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19680021275.pdf

Oh come on, you give the Not_very_Humble_Not_Much_of_a_Scientist a bit much credit.

Doesn't that report have sums and technical looking graph thingos in it? It's a bit much expecting him understand them!

I think that it's a bit much expecting him to read enough of the report to figure out that the data that he's referring to was collected almost 3 years earlier.

Dear markjo and rabinoz, my clever friends,

I must say a great excitement of my RE brethren I'm observing is indeed flattering to me. However, I am such a humble, meek and shy creature... Let's concentrate on the article, for my mild, modest, indecisive and diffident person certainly does not deserve your attention.

I myself wanted to humbly ask you how could it happen that the test was performed in 1965, but it took 3 years for data processing and publication of the results. Or yet another strange thing, let's refresh our memory. The first page of the publication says: "August 1968". However, Page 12 is dated "May 21, 1968". So, it looks like they spent 3 months just to print that nice title page and graw a beatiful NASA logo... well, anyway, that's not the main issue I'd like to asked your opinion about.

That main problem is the following. If you, dear markjo and you, dear rabinoz, have ever bothered to actually read the publication our dear markjo so kindly referred to the rest of us:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19680021275.pdf ,

you would have surely noticed that the test was not conducted at the re-entry, at 11 km/s.

For a brief moment, let us put aside that interesting fact that both of you have just proven, once again, the immense, mammoth, unimaginable scale of your incredible, stunning, breath-taking stupidity and ignorance. Can you read? Do you speak English? Have you ever seen a book? - we can discuss that later. Quite possibly, an average stone or a brick in the wall do have more intelligence and reason than both of you combined.

The very first table of the Appendix, on the Page 17, lists the "Sequence of the trajectory events". If you had brains, you might have already noticed that the maximum velocity of the model "shpazeship" (many thanks, Papa Legba!) was only 3,139 m/s and its maximum altitude was only 23,178 m.

So, that Apollo ablative or, rather, blablative heat shield material miserably failed and the hole in the "shpazeship" was produced in 95.5 seconds - even under those conditions.

Previously, I was asking, how could they go to the Moon. It's time to modify the question:

How could they even think about going to the Moon?
 
 
 
 

Sorry, Ladies and Gentlemen, now I must to laugh and roll on my Persian carpet. ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I myself wanted to humbly ask you how could it happen that the test was performed in 1965, but it took 3 years for data processing and publication of the results. Or yet another strange thing, let's refresh our memory. The first page of the publication says: "August 1968". However, Page 12 is dated "May 21, 1968". So, it looks like they spent 3 months just to print that nice title page and graw a beatiful NASA logo... well, anyway, that's not the main issue I'd like to asked your opinion about.

Maybe they had other things on their minds at the time.  Things like working on the heat shield material.

That main problem is the following. If you, dear markjo and you, dear rabinoz, have ever bothered to actually read the publication our dear markjo so kindly referred to the rest of us:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19680021275.pdf ,

you would have surely noticed that the test was not conducted at the re-entry, at 11 km/s.

Perhaps not, but the Apollo 4 command module reentry was.

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on June 12, 2016, 09:40:48 AM

I myself wanted to humbly ask you how could it happen that the test was performed in 1965, but it took 3 years for data processing and publication of the results. Or yet another strange thing, let's refresh our memory. The first page of the publication says: "August 1968". However, Page 12 is dated "May 21, 1968". So, it looks like they spent 3 months just to print that nice title page and graw a beatiful NASA logo... well, anyway, that's not the main issue I'd like to asked your opinion about.

Maybe they had other things on their minds at the time.  Things like working on the heat shield material.

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on June 12, 2016, 09:40:48 AM

That main problem is the following. If you, dear markjo and you, dear rabinoz, have ever bothered to actually read the publication our dear markjo so kindly referred to the rest of us:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19680021275.pdf ,

you would have surely noticed that the test was not conducted at the re-entry, at 11 km/s.

Perhaps not, but the Apollo 4 command module reentry was.

"Maybe they had other things on their minds at the time.  Things like working on the heat shield material".


At what time? Dear markjo, buddy, the data were processed and the report was finished in 1968. In August. How they could work on the heat shield material without knowing the results? How the Apollo module could re-enter at 11 km/s in 1967, if they did not even have the report on the temperatures at 3 km/s before August 1968?

Yeah, tell me yet another NASA fairy tale about the wonderful shpazeship and its blablative shield... Shed the stream of your wisdom, enlighten me... What was the shield made of, how did they test the material at 11 km/s, how did they build the shield, how did they test the shield and what were the temperatures... Tell me, man, let's laugh together again.