Faking the moon landing impossible

Quote from: rabinoz on May 24, 2017, 05:38:37 PM

Still wearing those NASAphobic glasses, I see!

If one is caught in manipulating the smaller things of life for unknown reasons, one cannot be trusted with far more important things.

Rabinoz I simply want to know if you, who i think is a believer in a Higher morality, agrees with these kind of fraudulent ''space'' marketing events.
Could you please shed your light on this ?

You claim that YOU are the expert and YOU claim that they were caught in manipulating the smaller things of life for unknown reasons.

I do not have to accept your claims if for no other reason than that you have a totally irrational and unjustified hatred of NASA and anything to with space exploration.
Especially as NASA and space exploration have not the slightest bit to do with the shape of the earth.

So I simply choose to regard all of your claims with a pinch of salt.

Quote from: Lonegranger on May 24, 2017, 03:36:52 PM

It really funny what people get up to on this forum.....pretending that they are super sleuths and know stuff.....and can prove the moonlanding were all faked! Pretending they all know all the stuff to know about moon dust and how it should move and behave at 1/6 th G ....or is it 1/6th denpressure!.......hold on no air so no denpressure, in your face Sceptimatic explain that flat people.....in near vacuum conditions...total crap by the way...... people went to the moon .......I know I had a drink with one once........well a couple of drinks....

The only thing I know about the moon, other than it's not made from metal and stone as claimed by some other flat head looser,  is a long time ago on a trip to the USA, 1989/ 1990 I happened to meet a former astronaut who had been on the moon, I forget his name, I think he said Apollo15, but I'm not really sure, being on this forum has really fucked up my memory.....anyhow we were in a bar at a conference, he had done a talk on the Spaceshuttle and the future of space flight earlier that day.....and he says the moon was as boring as this bar we were in, and he started waving his hands around he was quite well on, I think his tipple was wild turkey, I was getting him to try some Bowmore the bar had!....anyhow he said boring boring boring, when I asked why? He smiled and said .....both lacked any atmosphere, he then almost pissed himself laughing, the funny thing is I didn't laugh either. He then promptly fell off his stool. I had to carry him back to his room, his wife (girlfriend?) was not happy. The other strange thing I remember thinking was odd at the time he asked me if I wanted to buy any stamps!

True story.

True is also that you and others shovel a recent ISS live event between an ISS guitar hero and a band+choir on earth under the carpet.
The actual audio is for experts like me a post studio production in all aspects.
Since you nor any other glober validate my expertise in this particular aspect of sound, recording and live music, i wonder if you really care about any truth at all.
I have proposed the credibility of this event with several recording and theater engeneres and all agreed it is impossible on several levels.
The end result that was shown with accompanying video defies reality as WE the experts know as such.

Why do i keep bringing this to the table again and again ?
Because it shows that space agencies have little morality in their ranks to spread the ultimate truth....it's just a marketing hype that has no real boundaries then to promote a certain template of space achievements and amusement.
Every sensible person agrees that the specific ''live'' event between the ISS and earth is fraudulent on all accounts, but no one taking part in the actuall event indicated such thing.
If NASA is willing to betray the general public this way, i wonder what their ''moral standards'' look like.
Is it allright to pretend a certain ''intergalactic'' concert to fool the masses, while insiders like me know for a fact that it is totally impossible to have a real live concert between the ISS and planet earth ?

Who would dismiss this glaring fraudulent event as a minor footnote ??

God your not still harping on about this are you, get real, they landed on the moon, get over it, why should that fact spoil your day? Why do you get so angry over those four letters NASA? Other things have also landed on the moon, the wee Chinese rover, are you over that?

What's wrong with you that you feel the need to belive all this crap you come out with? It sounds a bit like my new JCET theory... possibly you would like that, for it to is just a pile of crap.

God your not still harping on about this are you, get real, they landed on the moon, get over it, why should that fact spoil your day? Why do you get so angry over those four letters NASA? Other things have also landed on the moon, the wee Chinese rover, are you over that?

What's wrong with you that you feel the need to belive all this crap you come out with? It sounds a bit like my new JCET theory... possibly you would like that, for it to is just a pile of crap.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Since this is clearly fake and you are not willing to answer any of it other than make me look like an unknowledgable whiner on purpose, i simply have to repeat it again and again.
Please ask some of your friends, relatives, sound guys or whatever ''google search'' and return with your comments if you are willing to give me the full details about how this could be a genuine ''live performance between the ISS and earth'' supported by scientific figures.

If not then we have the first clear attempt of ''NASA fakery'' in which you and i agree.
This is very important for any further discussion, because you constantly either redirect, ignore or deny that NASA is into any form of deliberate fakery.
Really it isn't that hard, is it ? Simply post all the scientific ''acoustic'' evidence why you think this is genuine !!
Don't bother answering if you change the goalpost once again and start mocking me for a supposed NASA obsession !

Thanks in advance.

Quote from: Lonegranger on May 24, 2017, 11:57:32 PM

God your not still harping on about this are you, get real, they landed on the moon, get over it, why should that fact spoil your day? Why do you get so angry over those four letters NASA? Other things have also landed on the moon, the wee Chinese rover, are you over that?

What's wrong with you that you feel the need to belive all this crap you come out with? It sounds a bit like my new JCET theory... possibly you would like that, for it to is just a pile of crap.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Since this is clearly fake and you are not willing to answer any of it other than make me look like an unknowledgable whiner on purpose, i simply have to repeat it again and again.
Please ask some of your friends, relatives, sound guys or whatever ''google search'' and return with your comments if you are willing to give me the full details about how this could be a genuine ''live performance between the ISS and earth'' supported by scientific figures.

If not then we have the first clear attempt of ''NASA fakery'' in which you and i agree.
This is very important for any further discussion, because you constantly either redirect, ignore or deny that NASA is into any form of deliberate fakery.
Really it isn't that hard, is it ? Simply post all the scientific ''acoustic'' evidence why you think this is genuine !!
Don't bother answering if you change the goalpost once again and start mocking me for a supposed NASA obsession !

Thanks in advance.

The problem is you are so focused on the tiny irrelevant details that you are completely missing the bigger picture.

You appear to be complaining about some out of sync music or some such, who cares, I am sure there is a good reason or explanation for it.

You a flat earth believer should be more concerned about the greater implications of your belief, possibly it's something you have never stopped to consider.

If you honestly believe in a flat earth then you have to be prepared to ditch all the current scientific knowledge we have accumulated over the last 2000 years or more.

Because flat earth belief rejects gravity you are going to have to come to terms with creating a whole new construct that explains everything, and by that I mean everything.

This is never spoken about, as far as I have observed, flat earther like yourself are much more caught up in irrelevant discussions like this thread rather than getting to grips with the real implications of your beliefs.

All I would say is ditch the irrelevant issues and get to grip with the important ones.

The problem is you are so focused on the tiny irrelevant details that you are completely missing the bigger picture.

This is extremely relevant, because it shows a certain attitude towards the general public,.....namely to promote ''space'' as a kind of Hollywood environment where anything can happen to entertain the masses !!!

You appear to be complaining about some out of sync music or some such, who cares, I am sure there is a good reason or explanation for it.

I care ,because it is the only field i consider myself an expert ! When i see these kind of absurd fakery that defies everything i know, studied and do for a daily job, then it takes a lot more to trust ''other'' achievements from space agencies.
Or do you want me to simply accept that everyone our there knows better in every aspect of life.....i might aswell donate my organs now while i am alive, because giving away all your personal senses, capabilities and brains to supposed superiour specimen destroyes any personal purpose in live other than to consume as i am also told by economical topdogs....who know better what is good for the economy.

You a flat earth believer should be more concerned about the greater implications of your belief, possibly it's something you have never stopped to consider.

The opposite is true. I was a huge fan of the whole cosmological hypothesis for very long.
But now i've got my senses back and will not return them to wicked men.

If you honestly believe in a flat earth then you have to be prepared to ditch all the current scientific knowledge we have accumulated over the last 2000 years or more.

Like the ancient Greeks who had such great eyesight that they saw ships sinking over the curvature ?

Because flat earth belief rejects gravity you are going to have to come to terms with creating a whole new construct that explains everything, and by that I mean everything.

This is never spoken about, as far as I have observed, flat earther like yourself are much more caught up in irrelevant discussions like this thread rather than getting to grips with the real implications of your beliefs.

All I would say is ditch the irrelevant issues and get to grip with the important ones.

Such as ??

Quote from: Lonegranger on May 25, 2017, 01:16:45 PM

The problem is you are so focused on the tiny irrelevant details that you are completely missing the bigger picture.

This is extremely relevant, because it shows a certain attitude towards the general public,.....namely to promote ''space'' as a kind of Hollywood environment where anything can happen to entertain the masses !!!

"Masses"? How many thousand people even know this exists (out of hundreds of millions of people in the US and tens of million Canadians, not to mention the billions in the rest of the world)?

Attitude? Was it BNL that suggested it or Hadfield? Did you know that Chris Hadfield is Canadian? Did you know that Barenaked Ladies also is Canadian? So you think a couple of Canadians coming up with an interesting idea somehow exposes all the space programs around the globe as frauds? You need to get a grip.

Quote

You appear to be complaining about some out of sync music or some such, who cares, I am sure there is a good reason or explanation for it.

I care ,because it is the only field i consider myself an expert ! When i see these kind of absurd fakery that defies everything i know, studied and do for a daily job, then it takes a lot more to trust ''other'' achievements from space agencies.

You claim that based on your and your friends' expertise that it's faked, but provide nothing to back that claim up. Instead, you demand that other people show that it isn't faked. Forget that! You wouldn't believe it anyway, because it's not what you want to hear.

You're the one making the claim "it's fake" "it's impossible to do". Show us.

Or do you want me to simply accept that everyone our there knows better in every aspect of life.....i might aswell donate my organs now while i am alive, because giving away all your personal senses, capabilities and brains to supposed superiour specimen destroyes any personal purpose in live other than to consume as i am also told by economical topdogs....who know better what is good for the economy.

Now, now. Calm down.

The issue is that you're breathlessly shouting that something is fake, claiming to be an expert, and saying all your buddies (who may or may not know anything relevant) agree, but providing nothing, as in zero, zip, nada, nil, {}, of substance to back any of it up. This sort of thing is going to be met with a great deal of skepticism. Show us the details of why you think it couldn't happen. Don't expect other people to do a bunch of crap just because you demand it.

Maybe starting a new thread for your discussion would be appropriate. This one is about the moon landings that took place almost 50 years ago.

Quote from: Lonegranger on May 24, 2017, 11:57:32 PM

God your not still harping on about this are you, get real, they landed on the moon, get over it, why should that fact spoil your day? Why do you get so angry over those four letters NASA? Other things have also landed on the moon, the wee Chinese rover, are you over that?

"What's wrong with you that you feel the need" to claim anything that YOU cannot understand is fake and intended to deceive>

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Chris Hadfield and Barenaked Ladies | I.S.S. (Is Somebody Singing), CBC Music

Since this is clearly fake and you are not willing to answer any of it other than make me look like an unknowledgable whiner on purpose, i simply have to repeat it again and again.

No, what you are saying is that in your extremely biased opinion,
"this is clearly fake and you are not willing to answer any of it other than make me look like an unknowledgeable whiner on purpose".

Please ask some of your friends, relatives, sound guys or whatever ''google search'' and return with your comments if you are willing to give me the full details about how this could be a genuine ''live performance between the ISS and earth'' supported by scientific figures.

I cannot find any explanations for NASA's claims, "supported by scientific figures" because I cannot find any "claims".

So:

• Exactly what did NASA claim about this performance?
  As far as I can see, NASA did not make any claims about that concert.
  If you can give some valid claims, I can look into them. So, is there any evidence of any intent to deceive?
  
  
• So-called simultaneous performances are held on earth. Even here the least possible two-way communication delay between say, the UK and NZ (about 20,000 km each way), is close to 0.1 secs.
  This delay is pure propagation delay on the optical fibre cables. The delay through repeaters would add to this.
  If an internet connection (like Skype) were used the delay would be much greater.
  
  
• I don't know the details of actual communication delays with the I.S.S. but I have seen estimates as low as 0.25 secs
  Though I am sure that in practice it would be considerably greater than that.

I have no direct knowledge of how it was done, but I can guess how it might have have been done.

Both performances could have been playing to copies of a prerecorded "timing track" (backing track, if you like).
I know this sort of thing has been common practice for a long time and in pipe-organ/piano duets etc.

All that needs to be done then is for Chris Hadfield to be playing with enough lead time to cover any likely communication delays, then his contribution delayed locally to match the timing of the "Barenaked Ladies" live performance.

If not then we have the first clear attempt of ''NASA fakery'' in which you and i agree.
This is very important for any further discussion, because you constantly either redirect, ignore or deny that NASA is into any form of deliberate fakery.
Really it isn't that hard, is it ? Simply post all the scientific ''acoustic'' evidence why you think this is genuine !!
Don't bother answering if you change the goalpost once again and start mocking me for a supposed NASA obsession !

Thanks in advance.

As Lonegranger says "Why do you get so angry over those four letters NASA?"?
Because NASA had nothing whatever to do with the acceptance of the Heliocentric Globe as the actual model of the solar system.
All NASA did was to provide photos that allowed us to see directly that the earth really is a rotating Globe.
Before that, the evidence was more indirect, but still completely quite convincing for anyone with eyes to see!
A bit of minimal understanding of physics and astronomy certainly helps.

But, whether what I suggested above is how it was done or not, I certainly
unless you can show evidence that NASA actually made any claims that were misleading.

I don't care what the media says, you must show evidence that NASA set out to mislead.

And no, I will not "start mocking me for a supposed NASA obsession".

"What's wrong with you that you feel the need" to claim anything that YOU cannot understand is fake and intended to deceive>

This is what the spacefrauds have to say about it themselves :

In the video, Hadfield said that his Earth-based producer told him his guitar playing sounded a little messy on the tracks he was sending down. Hadfield responded: “You come up here and play guitar—it’s all over the place.”
Hadfield also said that weightlessness interfered with the muscle memory of where his hands belonged to play a certain chord. If you want to recreate the feeling of playing guitar in space, stand on your head for a few hours and then try to play upside down. “You kind of have to learn how to be a space musician,” Hadfield said.

And now back to the video i have shown several times:

No messy guitar parts, not one single missed riff and video that is in sync with the audio.
A little added reverb and other effects on the voice and guitar and a perfect display on earth too.

Like i said it was a post production that was, considering the communication before the first note,.......sold as a LIVe performance between earth and the ISS.
This was not the case at all, but a cleverly performed (not for professional ears like mine) marketing trick.
Where all musical tracks were recorded prior to the final mix is therefor wide open for debate.
The most logical explaination is that it was all recorded long before and the video was added and all parts were mixed in a post production.

Do you understand that i don't want to answer the rest of your post when you remain such a gullible denier towards people like me who actually understand music production ?

Better luck next time mister unpaid shill (because the latter has become more obvious to me than ever before).

And now back to the video i have shown several times:

No messy guitar parts, not one single missed riff and video that is in sync with the audio.
A little added reverb and other effects on the voice and guitar and a perfect display on earth too.

Like i said it was a post production that was, considering the communication before the first note,.......sold as a LIVe performance between earth and the ISS.
This was not the case at all, but a cleverly performed (not for professional ears like mine) marketing trick.
Where all musical tracks were recorded prior to the final mix is therefor wide open for debate.
The most logical explaination is that it was all recorded long before and the video was added and all parts were mixed in a post production.

I think that you're assuming that each performance is being recorded individually and then combined.  It seems far more likely that the BNL performance is sent to the ISS where Hadfield syncs his performance and then sends the combined signal back down. 

In telecommunications terms, it seems like you're thinking 1 full-duplex stream and I'm thinking 2 half-duplex streams (1 up and 1 down) would work a lot easier and better.

I think that you're assuming that each performance is being recorded individually and then combined.  It seems far more likely that the BNL performance is sent to the ISS where Hadfield syncs his performance and then sends the combined signal back down. 

It doesn't matter because the ISS voice and guitar track is also a post production track.
Clearly added effects and ''flawless'' performance (as far as it gets with such a mediocre artist)

In telecommunications terms, it seems like you're thinking 1 full-duplex stream and I'm thinking 2 half-duplex streams (1 up and 1 down) would work a lot easier and better.

All irrelevant.

The musical track from earth is a post production and i can hear that in an instant.
The ISS vocal and guitar parts are also a post production

The final footage (audio+video) sounds and looks exactly like a musical clip, nothing more nothing less.
Why do you think that even Beyonce, Lady Gaga etc. who perform during live events with lots of pre recorded tracks make little mistakes all the time that are clearly audible , althaugh they perform in a hybrid live show ?

A real live show like live Aid, or the memorial of Freddy Mercury has this ''rough edge'' that comes with any live performance.
Singers slightly off the mark, sound in less than pristine quality and all sorts of quirks that are totally absent in this ISS/earth ''live'' performance.

When NASA thinks it is allright to insinuate a live performance that is clearly not, then one wonders about the moonlandings.

What if the whole world on live TV would see some dying astronauts, crushing landers, not working ascent propellant, a burning capsule during re-entry and many more ??
It would mean a worldwide rage among the general public of those days, confusion, immediate ending of all NASA funding and increasing riots that were allready happening in those days against the Vietnam war and other domestic problems.
It was clear, the moonlandings had to be absolutely flawless without anyone dying and a success story on all acounts.Even Apollo 13 is a success story about brave, fighting and concoring astronauts who overcame the most difficult hours, but also safely returned to earth as hero's.

I am glad i found a recent glaring marketing trick, insignificant compared to the moonlandings, but it shows a pattern.
When NASA is trying to do the impossible, success is a guarantee.
The chances for a messed up live performance between earth and the ISS are 100%, nothing less, but somehow NASA has convinced everyone over time that they, like Hollywood, make the impossible happen when they choose to.
It really puzzles me that smart persons like you, Rabinoz and lonegranger refuse to at least admit that NASA defies the odds so much more than what would be reasonable.

Like i said it was a post production that was, considering the communication before the first note,.......sold as a LIVe performance between earth and the ISS.

Was it "sold as a live performance..."? Can you support this claim?

Without that, there's no case to answer.

When NASA thinks it is allright to insinuate a live performance that is clearly not, then one wonders about the moonlandings.

NASA? Was NASA even mentioned in the BNL/ISS production? The only credits I see are for CBC Music. Why don't you take it up with them?

What if the whole world on live TV would see some dying astronauts, crushing landers, not working ascent propellant, a burning capsule during re-entry and many more ??
It would mean a worldwide rage among the general public of those days, confusion, immediate ending of all NASA funding and increasing riots that were allready happening in those days against the Vietnam war and other domestic problems.

NASA seems to have survived three out of four of those scenarios with the Apollo 1, Challenger, and Columbia accidents.

It was clear, the moonlandings had to be absolutely flawless without anyone dying and a success story on all acounts.

You seem to have forgotten (or maybe never knew about) Apollo 1. That wasn't a landing, but it was a fatal mishap in the development of the program leading directly to the landings.

Beyond that, none of the Apollo landings were perfectly flawless, but they worked well enough.

Even Apollo 13 is a success story about brave, fighting and concoring [conquering?] astronauts who overcame the most difficult hours, but also safely returned to earth as hero's.

So much for your notion that everything has to work perfectly for the crew to survive.

I am glad i found a recent glaring marketing trick, insignificant compared to the moonlandings, but it shows a pattern.
When NASA is trying to do the impossible, success is a guarantee.

Just because you think something is impossible doesn't mean that it is. Even though NASA attempts only what should be possible, they'd be surprised to hear about your guarantee.

The chances for a messed up live performance between earth and the ISS are 100%, nothing less [Just because you think something is impossible doesn't mean that it is.], but somehow NASA has convinced everyone over time that they, like Hollywood, make the impossible happen when they choose to.

Again, why do you attribute the BNL/ISS video to NASA?

Why is NASA your boogeyman? Is it because by being successful they make you feel inadequate?

It really puzzles me that smart persons like you, Rabinoz and lonegranger refuse to at least admit that NASA defies the odds so much more than what would be reasonable.

They accomplish remarkable things that are difficult to do. They do it by providing very smart people with very good equipment, and develop (expensive) processes in an effort to reduce risk to be as low as they can get it. Yet they still make some mistakes along the way.

NASA? Was NASA even mentioned in the BNL/ISS production? The only credits I see are for CBC Music. Why don't you take it up with them?

When something is clear as anything, supported by expertise, solid arguements and common sense why should i look any further ?

NASA seems to have survived three out of four of those scenarios with the Apollo 1, Challenger, and Columbia accidents.
You seem to have forgotten (or maybe never knew about) Apollo 1. That wasn't a landing, but it was a fatal mishap in the development of the program leading directly to the landings.
Beyond that, none of the Apollo landings were perfectly flawless, but they worked well enough.

Compared to Apollo 1 and the spaceshuttle adventures that were nowhere near as complicated, the moonlandings overachieved in a way that has never been seen in any other technoligical development before or afterwards.
''The greatest achievement'' of mankind should have had at least a lander crashing, or not working untested propellent in a ''zero'' gravity environment on the moon, or a mismatched rendezvous in the moon's orbit, or moondust harming the environment of the delicate equipment of the LEM,or astronauts with sudden cislunar/moon illnesses, or jamming life support and climat control, or failed remote control from earth, or a burning capsule during re-entry and many more.......
They all were in the bullseye with the very first throw.
And spare me the ''testing facilities'' on earth and carefully collected data through probes and earlier fly by missions.
They didn't really know what to expect without meticulously collected data needed for succes on the first trip, with actuall humans entering the realms of the moon.
That no one died and equipment worked flawlessly says it all.
If you follow the devellopment of the JSF or formula 1 the learning curve is quite steep here on earth and many, many mistakes occur that despite far more accurate computer simulations cannot be forseen by profound teams of experts.

The moonlandings is a league of it's own, but to insinuate the perfect outcome is what was shown on a pre-recorded film is laughable at best.

So much for your notion that everything has to work perfectly for the crew to survive.

The scenario was based on a movie principle that Americans like so much. First everything seems to be going smoothly, then the disasters strikes and everyone thinks the hero's are going to die, but then they somehow survive against all odds....in apollo 13 using ducttape to keep the ''disintegrating'' capsule together.
It's a Hollywood scenario, that you don't see that is entirely your choice.

Just because you think something is impossible doesn't mean that it is. Even though NASA attempts only what should be possible, they'd be surprised to hear about your guarantee.

Yeah and tomorrow Fernando Alonso will win the F1 grand prix of Monaco, while he is also racing in the Indy 500.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on May 26, 2017, 03:32:21 PM

NASA? Was NASA even mentioned in the BNL/ISS production? The only credits I see are for CBC Music. Why don't you take it up with them?

When something is clear as anything, supported by expertise, solid arguements and common sense why should i look any further ?

What's clear is that you're complaining about a production by CBC and for some reason attributing it to NASA. Did you even notice that?

Quote

NASA seems to have survived three out of four of those scenarios with the Apollo 1, Challenger, and Columbia accidents.
You seem to have forgotten (or maybe never knew about) Apollo 1. That wasn't a landing, but it was a fatal mishap in the development of the program leading directly to the landings.
Beyond that, none of the Apollo landings were perfectly flawless, but they worked well enough.

Compared to Apollo 1 and the spaceshuttle adventures that were nowhere near as complicated, the moonlandings overachieved in a way that has never been seen in any other technoligical development before or afterwards.

Citation needed.

''The greatest achievement'' of mankind should have had at least a lander crashing

Why? Because you think so?

Do you wish that had happened? Have you considered therapy?

or not working untested propellent in a ''zero'' gravity environment on the moon

The surface of the moon isn't a zero-gravity (or, more correctly, free-fall) environment.

or a mismatched rendezvous in the moon's orbit

Avoiding that is the result of skillful execution of a plan based on careful analysis by competent people using well-established principles by well-trained professionals using well-designed equipment suited for the task. The fact that there can be skillful, competent, and well-trained professionals doing a complicated job successfully seems to offend you.

or moondust harming the environment of the delicate equipment of the LEM,or astronauts with sudden cislunar/moon illnesses, or jamming life support and climat control, or failed remote control from earth, or a burning capsule during re-entry and many more.......

Which is why proper planning and design is necessary. And sending healthy people to do the job.

They all were in the bullseye with the very first throw.

Yep. That's incentive for all involved to do their job well.

And spare me the ''testing facilities'' on earth and carefully collected data through probes and earlier fly by missions.
They didn't really know what to expect without meticulously collected data needed for succes on the first trip, with actuall humans entering the realms of the moon.

They needed data. They acquired data. Why do you want to be "spared" hearing that?

That no one died and equipment worked flawlessly says it all.

Citations needed.

If you follow the devellopment of the JSF or formula 1 the learning curve is quite steep here on earth and many, many mistakes occur that despite far more accurate computer simulations cannot be forseen by profound teams of experts.

Auto racing has a completely different set of problems than spaceflight. Are you suggesting that Formula-1 racing is not possible because it's hard to model and anticipate problems?

The moonlandings is a league of it's own, but to insinuate the perfect outcome is what was shown on a pre-recorded film is laughable at best.

Quote

So much for your notion that everything has to work perfectly for the crew to survive.

The scenario was based on a movie principle that Americans like so much. First everything seems to be going smoothly, then the disasters strikes and everyone thinks the hero's are going to die, but then they somehow survive against all odds....in apollo 13 using ducttape to keep the ''disintegrating'' capsule together.
It's a Hollywood scenario, that you don't see that is entirely your choice.

That could have been the "script" for WWII, too (well, maybe not from the POV of Germany, Italy, or Japan). Do you think WWII didn't happen and was just a Hollywood fabrication?

Quote

Just because you think something is impossible doesn't mean that it is. Even though NASA attempts only what should be possible, they'd be surprised to hear about your guarantee.

Yeah and tomorrow Fernando Alonso will win the F1 grand prix of Monaco, while he is also racing in the Indy 500.

Never heard of him. Do you think he's on a NASA auto-racing Team?

Note: you may think something is impossible that actually is impossible, but just because you think something is impossible doesn't mean it actually is. See the difference?

The Apollo missions were not flawless.

Propellant was tested in earth orbit and lunar orbit before it was used to land.

Just one thing that went wrong... docking on Apollo 14. It took 2 hours to dock the CM and LM.

why would there ever be a mismatched rendezvous in Lunar orbit when both craft can readjust their orbits if needed?

why would there ever be a mismatched rendezvous in Lunar orbit when both craft can readjust their orbits if needed?

You mean ''hoovering'' ? 

Quote from: frenat on May 28, 2017, 05:48:54 AM

why would there ever be a mismatched rendezvous in Lunar orbit when both craft can readjust their orbits if needed?

You mean ''hoovering'' ? 

No, I mean exactly what I said.  Both the CSM and LM could readjust their orbits if needed.  I have no idea what you mean by "hoovering" nor why you seem to think it is funny.  But thank you for proving you don't have an answer.

''The greatest achievement'' of mankind should have had at least a lander crashing, or not working untested propellent in a ''zero'' gravity environment on the moon,

Wait - the moon has zero gravity? The propellant and the engines were tested on Earth, in vacuum chambers, and in Earth orbit.

or a mismatched rendezvous in the moon's orbit,

Why would you think they couldn't adjust orbital parameters?

or moondust harming the environment of the delicate equipment of the LEM,

Lunar dust caused tremendous problems, it got everywhere.

or astronauts with sudden cislunar/moon illnesses,

This did happen. Do some research.

or jamming life support and climat control,

If someone who knows as little as you do about the missions can figure these potential problems out, do you think experts might just have given it a little thought as well?

or failed remote control from earth,

You mean like the one that stopped them filming the Apollo 15 take-off correctly?

or a burning capsule during re-entry and many more.......
They all were in the bullseye with the very first throw.

Because everything was tried and tested again and again to make sure it went a well as possible and dealing with problems, right down to the getting gimbal locks in lunar orbit, to your landing site being full or rocks and important switches getting jammed, to getting hit by lightning, to oxygen tanks exploding, to the CSM not being able to dock, to fuel valves getting stuck and many many more.

And spare me the ''testing facilities'' on earth and carefully collected data through probes and earlier fly by missions.

No, you don't get to claim testing wasn't done and then dismiss all proof that it was. The development and testing process of every part of the equipment and procedures were tested and real data from actual space missions were also analysed. All of this is publicly available for you to look at and learn.

They didn't really know what to expect without meticulously collected data needed for succes on the first trip, with actuall humans entering the realms of the moon.

Sooner or later, no matter what level of testing and preparation they do, someone has to be the first to do it. The equipment they did send to the moon and that landed there in advance meant that when this happened they had a pretty good idea what to expect.

That no one died and equipment worked flawlessly says it all.

Equipment didn't always work flawlessly and people did actually die.

Why would you think they couldn't adjust orbital parameters?

In your dreams they can !!
Untested propellent in 1/6 of earth's gravity. Unknown effect on the exact velocity and precise direction needed for a cosmic rendezvous.
Look at the trajectory of the rockets of those days.....it's absurd to even consider a rendezvouz so delicate and precise between the LM and the CM in a totally untested new situation with fatiguing and less then ideal mindframe of the involved astronauts.
And they simply manouvred untill they ''touched'' the two tincans without smashing a deadly hole in the alu foil exteriour.
Wow you people are something when it comes to a firm believe in fantasy from outerspace.

Lunar dust caused tremendous problems, it got everywhere.

When NASA displayed their ideas about moonbases and future trips to the moon they even envisioned a moondust decontamination chamber between the moonsuits and any interiour, Why ? because, Moondust WILL form a huge thread.
And good old Buzz claimed they were covered with dust, top to toe and with their non flexible gloves they tried to sweep it of their suits before entering the LEM.
This is a groce offence towards any critical thinker,.....why do you let those idiots fool you this much with their ''Texan'' bravery and idiotic achievements ?
Sweeping away moondust, while in any future mission it is out of the question to even consider an option where moondust can come inside the base, module or ascent stage.

This did happen. Do some research.

Who died of radiation cancer, or became so ill that a manual rendezvous, proper re-entry were fucked up big time ?
Ahh they had minor inconveniences i guess ?

If someone who knows as little as you do about the missions can figure these potential problems out, do you think experts might just have given it a little thought as well?

Which experts from wich contractors, those in charge of the ''nuts or the bolts'' ?
The compartmentalisation was so extreme that there were very few experts with a bit of a real overview.
Do your homework !

You mean like the one that stopped them filming the Apollo 15 take-off correctly?

You think that was filmed on the moon ?

Because everything was tried and tested again and again to make sure it went a well as possible and dealing with problems, right down to the getting gimbal locks in lunar orbit, to your landing site being full or rocks and important switches getting jammed, to getting hit by lightning, to oxygen tanks exploding, to the CSM not being able to dock, to fuel valves getting stuck and many many more.

Tested on earth, with extremely basic simulations and simulators.
Look at the Formula 1 testing facilities. Extremely enhanced computer simulations, a fairly straight forward design of something like a sportscar....(compared to manned space missions),
many engineers, testing, money and more........
It's all there, but i have seen engine failures all of a sudden, jamming equipment, failing software and many more.......all with the result that the sportscar has the withdraw from the race.
And during pre season testing and circuit testing there is a continious data stream between the car and the engineres, but still they can't cover it all....to the contrary, because testing and performing on the grand stage differ greatly !!
It's only  a racecar and shit still happens a lot, but i have to believe that by some magical force or an unknown quantity of luck, all moon missions safely returned to earth and apart from Apollo 13 they actually landed on the moon and back?

That is why i keep repeating that you have certain standards in real life like formula one or the Joint Strike Fighter and you have NASA, Hollywood, Disney propaganda that defies the learning curve and real achievements on earth by an absurd large factor.
Like William Shatner (Captain Kirk/Star Trek) recently claimed ''everything related to current cosmology is science fiction'', no more no less.
And i happen to like the special effects in Starwars more than in the Apollo fantasy.....each to his own i guess....

A
No, you don't get to claim testing wasn't done and then dismiss all proof that it was. The development and testing process of every part of the equipment and procedures were tested and real data from actual space missions were also analysed. All of this is publicly available for you to look at and learn.

See my real life testing comparison in formula one as an analogy !

Sooner or later, no matter what level of testing and preparation they do, someone has to be the first to do it. The equipment they did send to the moon and that landed there in advance meant that when this happened they had a pretty good idea what to expect.

In formula one they actually know exactly what to expect, but still every team meets sudden engine failures and other failures which would have been deadly during the moon missions.
Why don't you see the very obvious ?

Equipment didn't always work flawlessly and people did actually die.

Not during the most dangerous events of the actuall manned moon missions........it defies reality in a very shrewed, evil and propagandistic fashion.
I sure hope to see the truth come out one day and the rehabilitation of Bill Kaysing and Ralf René !!

Quote from: onebigmonkey on May 30, 2017, 12:31:08 AM

Why would you think they couldn't adjust orbital parameters?

In your dreams they can !!
Untested propellent

In your dreams. They tested the crap out of that stuff.

in 1/6 of earth's gravity.

And that affects the chemical reaction how?

Unknown effect on the exact velocity and precise direction needed for a cosmic rendezvous.

The engine performance was well characterized, and the gravity field of the moon was well-enough understood so the trajectory could be calculated in advance. Corrections needed were small enough that they could be applied in real time as necessary.

Look at the trajectory of the rockets of those days.....it's absurd to even consider a rendezvouz so delicate and precise between the LM and the CM in a totally untested^{[citation needed]} new situation with fatiguing and less then ideal mindframe of the involved astronauts.

Practice, practice, practice...

And they simply manouvred untill they ''touched'' the two tincans without smashing a deadly hole in the alu foil exteriour^{[citation needed]}.

They'd done rendezvous before and were seasoned professional pilots. I suspect with a little practice it was easier than landing a jet aircraft on an aircraft carrier.

You're probably thinking the thin metalized mylar blankets shielding the LM from sunlight is the structure of the vehicle itself. That's a common mistake. Further, the docking mechanism was quite sturdy - it's designed so that the two parts can be intentionally bumped into each other. These spacecraft were designed by real engineers who knew what they were doing, not some armchair "expert" with too much time on his hands declaring [imagine this in a whiny voice:] "it's too haaaarrrrd for me to do. It must be imposssssible!!!" The result was the parts that didn't need to be sturdy were flimsy, and the parts that did need to be sturdy were robust, while keeping the overall weight as low as practical.

Wow you people are something when it comes to a firm believe in fantasy from outerspace.

<and on, and on, and on...>

...it defies reality in a very shrewed, evil and propagandistic fashion.
I sure hope to see the truth come out one day and the rehabilitation of Bill Kaysing and Ralf René !!

You seem angry.

Maybe you can make a coherent point if you try your reply again after you've calmed down some and thought a little bit first. That attempt conveys little but irrational rage.

In your dreams. They tested the crap out of that stuff.

Not on the moon silly.......
They test the crap out of racecars each week and each week we wittiness mechanical failure, despite all the data that is collected and analysed.
Besides that , formula one is a well established discipline contrary to ''concoring the moon''.

And that affects the chemical reaction how?

Unknown in that specific moon circomstances. You do know what unknown means do you ?
It means that you have only theorised about what could happen even when you think the outcome will follow a certain prediction based on testing and other input.
That's why even the best F1 teams, with the best engineres, limitless amounts of money, superb data analysis have engine failures more than once.
(Lewis Hamilton last season,...all to his personal and Mercedes' dismay)

All the rest of your post is a showcase of hide and seak and a further attempt to make me look as some sort of foolish angry dude....it's a wellknown tactic of globers and Apollo lovers. But i don't blame you my friend, i understand why you are doing it.

All Apollo missions to the moon and back could not have been properly tested and thus we should have wittinessed at least one major crash or engine failure that would mean the death of the involved astronauts.
On earth it happens all the time, despite all the money invested, testing facilities, engineres involved, scientific analysis,......
Therefor my simple example of car racing....
On earth we have many possibilities of escaping death, simply because we are on earth, a racecar driver climbing out of his crashed vehicle, a pilot with a parachute and ejection seat.......on your way to the moon and back the safetynet is absent....you die while everyone is watching on tv !!

That's why the Apollo fanboys want a discussion in detail about one of the many aspects......sure any single aspect could be done in isolation and theory.....
But not all of them at the same time in an untested reallife event, because we the real folks know that isn't reality on earth as we know it !!
It's Hollywood, where the hero cop dodges all the bullits shot at him, the racecardriver still wins while his car is ruined to the core, the airplane still safely lands without active jetstream engines and spaceship overcomes a blackhole so everyone can hug their lovedones in the end.

It's the propaganda that has formed todays society.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on May 30, 2017, 01:49:58 PM

Quote from: dutchy on May 30, 2017, 12:24:56 PM

Quote from: onebigmonkey on May 30, 2017, 12:31:08 AM

Why would you think they couldn't adjust orbital parameters?

In your dreams they can !!
Untested propellent

In your dreams. They tested the crap out of that stuff.

Not on the moon silly.......

[Context restored]

Even if that were true (it's not), so what?

They test the crap out of racecars each week and each week we wittiness mechanical failure, despite all the data that is collected and analysed.
Besides that , formula one is a well established discipline contrary to ''concoring the moon''.

F1 racing and spaceflight are quite different problems. In F1, for instance, the margins are much thinner because you win races by squeezing the most out of the least; if you find during the race you need just a little more power than the engine was designed to deliver reliably, your engine may well blow up. If the planning for a space mission was done correctly and it goes more or less according to plan, the situation where you needed more power won't arise.

Quote

And that affects the chemical reaction how?

Unknown in that specific moon circomstances. You do know what unknown means do you ?

Sure, but what isn't known? The characteristics of the chemistry are well-understood and well tested. The fact that gravity at the moon's surface is lower than on earth is known, but its strength is also known and the trajectory can be accurately calculated (and less energy is required, to boot!) If lower gravity has any effect on the chemical reaction at all, that can be accounted for because the characteristics of the chemistry are well known. That the environment of the surface of the moon is airless is well known; this is built into the trajectory calculations (and makes them - and a whole raft of other considerations - far simpler).

So what, that matters, is unknown?

It means that you have only theorised about what could happen even when you think the outcome will follow a certain prediction based on testing and other input.

Yep. The advantage of thorough testing, accurate data collection and analysis, and sound and complete models allows accurate and reliable predictions of outcomes.

You probably theorize that your car will start tomorrow, too. You haven't tested it tomorrow yet, though.

That's why even the best F1 teams, with the best engineres, limitless amounts of money^{[citation needed]}, superb data analysis have engine failures more than once.
(Lewis Hamilton last season,...all to his personal and Mercedes' dismay)

Irrelevant. That's a different environment.

All the rest of your post is a showcase of hide and seak and a further attempt to make me look as some sort of foolish angry dude

If you didn't make angry and irrational posts, readers would be less inclined to think you're angry and foolish.

....it's a wellknown tactic of globers and Apollo lovers. But i don't blame you my friend, i understand why you are doing it.

So you recognize the Apollo hoax and flat-earth believers are often angry and foolish? Good. Many of them certainly are. Quite frankly, if I had to defend an idea that was plainly wrong and has no evidence supporting it against people with a better idea and a mountain of solid evidence in their favor, I'd become frustrated, too. Maybe you should reconsider what you believe.

All Apollo missions to the moon and back could not have been properly tested and thus we should have wittinessed at least one major crash or engine failure that would mean the death of the involved astronauts.

"Should have"? It sounds like you're disappointed that no Apollo astronauts died in space. Is that from your enthusiasm for auto racing, where crashes and spectacular mechanical failures are an especially exciting part of the show for many fans? Do you consider the rare fatality on a track especially rewarding?

There were engine failures in the Apollo program, by the way. The system had enough redundancy and sufficient margin (and monitors so that a malfunctioning engine could be shut down before reaching the point where it might fail catastrophically) that the failures didn't terminate the missions. Data from the "anomalies" was used to improve the design.

On earth it happens all the time, despite all the money invested, testing facilities, engineres involved, scientific analysis,......
Therefor my simple example of car racing....
On earth we have many possibilities of escaping death, simply because we are on earth, a racecar driver climbing out of his crashed vehicle, a pilot with a parachute and ejection seat.......on your way to the moon and back the safetynet is absent....you die while everyone is watching on tv !!

Which is why there is more safety margin built into manned spaceflight than race cars (and unmanned missions, which is also part of the reason robotic missions are far less costly). You win races making the margin as small as you can tolerate, running the engine as close to the point where it destroys itself as you think you can get away with; you have successful space missions when you make them as large as you can practically achieve.

That's why the Apollo fanboys want a discussion in detail about one of the many aspects......sure any single aspect could be done in isolation and theory.....
But not all of them at the same time in an untested reallife event, because we the real folks know that isn't reality on earth as we know it !!

You go on and on with the "untested" shtick. Even if you really believe that, it has no effect on what really happened and still happens.

It's Hollywood, where the hero cop dodges all the bullits shot at him, the racecardriver still wins while his car is ruined to the core, the airplane still safely lands without active jetstream engines and spaceship overcomes a blackhole so everyone can hug their lovedones in the end.

Your point is?

It's the propaganda that has formed todays society.

No, that's the entertainment business. There is more to the world than that, and not everyone ignores reality the way you seem to want to.

Maybe you should stick to auto racing and WWE wrestling instead of calling people with more curiosity and drive than you have "fanboys".

That's why the Apollo fanboys want a discussion in detail about one of the many aspects......sure any single aspect could be done in isolation and theory.....
But not all of them at the same time in an untested reallife event, because we the real folks know that isn't reality on earth as we know it !!
It's Hollywood, where the hero cop dodges all the bullits shot at him, the racecardriver still wins while his car is ruined to the core, the airplane still safely lands without active jetstream engines and spaceship overcomes a blackhole so everyone can hug their lovedones in the end.

Wot?

It's the propaganda that has formed todays society.

But, "todays society" has nothing whatever to do with the "shape of the earth" - that was settled centuries ago!

You seem angry.

Maybe you can make a coherent point if you try your reply again after you've calmed down some and thought a little bit first. That attempt conveys little but irrational rage.

As Alpha2Omega said "make a coherent point" and then come up with some rational argument.
All you do now is claim that you can't see how it could be done, completely ignoring the tremendous development work that preceded the Aplollo 11 mission. That preparation included lunar landers and lunar orbits, both unmanned and manned.

You are so incensed that any thought of space exploration shatters your Flat Earth Fantasy.

But your Flat Earth Fantasy never existed! So stop dreaming of it ever being accepted.

NASA and space exploration never had anything to do with proving the heliocentric globe!
Everyone but a few deluded ones already knew that and people have known it for centuries, but you are simply unable to face reality.

And where did this stupid NASAphobia start? Quite possibly with Samuel Shenton's claim:

Year: 1982
Some years ago, NASA released the first deep-space photographs of the beautiful cloud-swirled blue-green agate we call earth. A reporter showed one of them to the late Samuel Shenton, then president of International Flat Earth Research Society. Shenton studied it for a moment and said, "It's easy to see how a photograph like that could fool the untrained eye."

What gets me is why he did not have any object to earlier space "missions" of Russia with the "Sputniks" and USA's "Explorers", nor the early manned missions of Yugi Gagarin, Alan Shepard, Jr. and John Glenn. It seemed that only the photograph bothered him, so he had to declare if a fake, whatever!

He claimed that his  "infallible eye"  could show that this sort of thing was a fake! That photo was taken with an ordinary camera as a single non-composite image.

''The greatest achievement'' of mankind should have had at least a lander crashing, or not working untested propellent in a ''zero'' gravity environment on the moon, or a mismatched rendezvous in the moon's orbit, or moondust harming the environment of the delicate equipment of the LEM,or astronauts with sudden cislunar/moon illnesses, or jamming life support and climat control, or failed remote control from earth, or a burning capsule during re-entry and many more.......
They all were in the bullseye with the very first throw.
And spare me the ''testing facilities'' on earth and carefully collected data through probes and earlier fly by missions.
They didn't really know what to expect without meticulously collected data needed for succes on the first trip, with actuall humans entering the realms of the moon.
That no one died and equipment worked flawlessly says it all.

First of all, 3 men did die in Apollo 1 because things did not work "flawlessly".

Secondly, what makes you think that Apollo 11 was the "very first throw"?  Have you completely forgotten about the Mercury missions where NASA learned how to put men in orbit?  Or the Gemini missions where NASA learned how to rendezvous and work in orbit?  Or Apollo 2 - 10 that tested all of the hardware that was used for the moon landings in space and in lunar orbit?

Quote from: dutchy on May 27, 2017, 03:29:46 PM

''The greatest achievement'' of mankind should have had at least a lander crashing, or not working untested propellent in a ''zero'' gravity environment on the moon, or a mismatched rendezvous in the moon's orbit, or moondust harming the environment of the delicate equipment of the LEM,or astronauts with sudden cislunar/moon illnesses, or jamming life support and climat control, or failed remote control from earth, or a burning capsule during re-entry and many more.......
They all were in the bullseye with the very first throw.
And spare me the ''testing facilities'' on earth and carefully collected data through probes and earlier fly by missions.
They didn't really know what to expect without meticulously collected data needed for succes on the first trip, with actuall humans entering the realms of the moon.
That no one died and equipment worked flawlessly says it all.

First of all, 3 men did die in Apollo 1 because things did not work "flawlessly".

Secondly, what makes you think that Apollo 11 was the "very first throw"?  Have you completely forgotten about the Mercury missions where NASA learned how to put men in orbit?  Or the Gemini missions where NASA learned how to rendezvous and work in orbit?  Or Apollo 2 - 10 that tested all of the hardware that was used for the moon landings in space and in lunar orbit?

I can recite how the Goldilocks story goes too, but that doesnt make it fact.

NASA are proven liars.

Space is the ONLY sphere of human technology where things get WORSE as time moves on.

Quote from: markjo on May 31, 2017, 07:05:05 AM

Quote from: dutchy on May 27, 2017, 03:29:46 PM

''The greatest achievement'' of mankind should have had at least a lander crashing, or not working untested propellent in a ''zero'' gravity environment on the moon, or a mismatched rendezvous in the moon's orbit, or moondust harming the environment of the delicate equipment of the LEM,or astronauts with sudden cislunar/moon illnesses, or jamming life support and climat control, or failed remote control from earth, or a burning capsule during re-entry and many more.......
They all were in the bullseye with the very first throw.
And spare me the ''testing facilities'' on earth and carefully collected data through probes and earlier fly by missions.
They didn't really know what to expect without meticulously collected data needed for succes on the first trip, with actuall humans entering the realms of the moon.
That no one died and equipment worked flawlessly says it all.

First of all, 3 men did die in Apollo 1 because things did not work "flawlessly".

Secondly, what makes you think that Apollo 11 was the "very first throw"?  Have you completely forgotten about the Mercury missions where NASA learned how to put men in orbit?  Or the Gemini missions where NASA learned how to rendezvous and work in orbit?  Or Apollo 2 - 10 that tested all of the hardware that was used for the moon landings in space and in lunar orbit?

I can recite how the Goldilocks story goes too, but that doesnt make it fact.

Are there still thousands of people who worked on the Goldilocks program still alive who you can interview?

NASA are proven liars.

So are you.  Go figure.

Space is the ONLY sphere of human technology where things get WORSE as time moves on.

Huh? 

Lol Again you can call me a liar and you can believe that Earth is a ball, but I KNOW better.

Who are YOU going to side with, dear reader?

The one who beLIEves.

Or the one who kNOWs.

Lol Again you can call me a liar and you can believe that Earth is a ball, but I KNOW better.

You call everyone else liars, so why shouldn't I call you one?
 

Who are YOU going to side with, dear reader?

Who are you talking to?

Quote from: Arealhumanbeing on May 31, 2017, 08:10:13 AM

Lol Again you can call me a liar and you can believe that Earth is a ball, but I KNOW better.

You call everyone else liars, so why shouldn't I call you one?
 

Quote from: Arealhumanbeing on May 31, 2017, 08:10:13 AM

Who are YOU going to side with, dear reader?

Who are you talking to?

I called everyone a liar? Well now thats just another of your lies.

Im talking to the lurkers... You know, what I was before I made an account.

Give it up Markjo. Youve lost. Flat Earth has won.