Apollo 16 floodlight failure?

Quote from: nickrulercreator on March 23, 2018, 09:26:04 AM

ITT:

Totallackey doesn't know how people train for missions.

Dutchy doesn't know how stuff works, so he doesn't believe it.

I know how to occupy an entire legion of globelings almost single handedly !

You and others don’t know how stuff works in Aerospace either.....but you/we are in good company , because most Apollo astronauts have made claims and remarks that reveal their complete lack of understanding too.
Add to that our clown rabinoz who tries to upgrade his performance with paperthin copypaste trash he likes to save on his harddrive for further notice ( the flatearth forums that is ) ...... and you get the picture of why it is so easy for me to keep you all busy for pages.

Are you really not aware of your flagrant attempt of projection ?

What BadXtoss said exactly. You have yet to provide sufficient evidence to back up your argument. I am actually studying aerospace. Don't make baseless claims.

You claim Apollo astronauts made claims showing they lack understanding. Mind providing sources?

You're as much of a fool as the next hoaxer. Either put up, or shut up.

Quote from: Cahaya on March 23, 2018, 08:45:15 AM

Quote from: totallackey on March 23, 2018, 08:30:07 AM

Quote from: Cahaya on March 23, 2018, 07:12:08 AM

But "certification" is not the same as "pilot in command". Or are First Officers not "certified" in your world?

Look, everyone knows what the implication was with your post.

The implication was you could be a pilot without logging any actual in-flight hours.

That is false and you have been shown to be a disingenuous azzhat.

And yet everyone knows that all the Apollo astronauts came from a pilot background. They'd all logged thousands of hours flying and many hours in simulators in preparation for the lunar missions. Certified if you like! So it seems it was you who simply didn't know what you are talking about. I have said nothing false, implied or otherwise.

I've also said nothing that requires the excessive use of swear words that seems your go to position, so please mind your language in future, you're impressing no one

Since you are making note of my language, you are correct.

I am impressing no one, of which you are first!

And, once again, you are simply lying out your rectum, you schmarmy little crank...

You took the direction of post, implying simulators were enough to achieve certification.

So, again, kindly go pound sand and FY incessantly.

Simulators are enough to achieve certification to the level needed to fly the aircraft with fare paying passengers on board. So no lying at all. Apologies for not responding quicker as I was busy flying an airplane.

Quote from: nickrulercreator on March 23, 2018, 09:26:04 AM

Dutchy doesn't know how stuff works, so he doesn't believe it.

Add to that our clown rabinoz who tries to upgrade his performance with paperthin copypaste trash he likes to save on his harddrive for further notice ( the flatearth forums that is ) ...... and you get the picture of why it is so easy for me to keep you all busy for pages.

How true of you and most flat earthers But what saddens me so much is that you are not prepared to learn. You think that you can reason everything out with your superior intellect.
But

Silly dutchy thinks that just because he can't do something, it can't be done. I'm not too proud to admit that there are many people that know far more than I.
Like Oscar Wilde, I know that, "I am not young enough to know everything."

Dutchy, I guess the apology for this is not coming!

Quote from: dutchy on March 22, 2018, 05:56:48 AM

But the posters here ( like rabinoz) are often the same ones who believe a muslim who could barely fly a Cessna could stear a Boeing into the WTC, because the guy practiced in a computer simulator a few times + autopilot on  the day.

As far as I can find only two people on this site used the words "muslim" and "Cessna" is any post. One was Heiwa (please don't associate me with that idiot) and the other YOU!

I did not say that and can find no-one that I can find except you that even suggested that!

Justify you claim immediately, or we'll all know that we can't trust a word that you say!

Good pilots (Muslim or not) can and do fly new types of flying machine with only flight simulator training and in the early days with no training on that craft.

So now we all know that you don't care about using deception to bolster you sad case and know that we can't trust a word that you say.

But you post out of total ignorance because your get all your information from your own twisted imagination, guesswork as to how things might have been and the writings of the earlier moon mission hoaxers, who based their own arguments on their own ignorance.

---

Now to answer your ramblings that I had no time for earlier:

Quote from: rabinoz on March 22, 2018, 06:40:39 AM

You are proving you total ignorance again dutchy!

Time for some  different qualifications for ‘moi’ ?

Quote from: rabinoz

Neil Armstrong was an experienced test pilot before Apollo - he even flew the X-15 "rocket plane".

And ? Did he ever land on the moon in a vehicle like the LM ?

• Everything new has to be done a first time. Every new type of aircraft has to be flown a first time. All test pilots can do is to prepare as well as possible.
  It the eary days, say before the 1930's it was "hope for the best and expect the worst" and that did not always work
  
  THE 'WRONG' BROTHERS AVIATION'S FAILURES (1920s)
  But things were different even in the 1960s when the had good testing regimes and "simulators".
  
  
• Then, no of course, he didn't "land on the moon in a vehicle like the LM" until he landed "on the moon in the LM" - are you a total idiot?

I drive a car every day, all my life...... but i am not sure i could park a truck in reverse with the first attempt.
And the simularities are much greater than between a yet fighter pilot and landing a fragile device such as the LM on the lunar surface.

That is why Neil Armstrong practised on the "Flying Bedstead" which was designed to match on earth the performance of the LM on the moon.
It had a jet engine to support 5/6 of the weight and dynamic characteristics to match the bevaviour of the LM on the moon.

Quote from: rabinoz

The "simulator" on earth was an actual flying machine built to mimic the way the LM would handle on the moon.

Did the simulators include an engine shut down moments before they fall on the lunar surface, but magically the most fragile structure in the history of flight in general remained it’s sturdiness, no leg broke away, no crater, no dust on the pads, while bomb diving towards the lunar surface from an angle......and no the LM didn’t fall over either.

No, what would be the point because the "Flying Bedstead" was not the LM? But the LM was strength tested. But do YOU expect me to know the details of that sort of thing "out of my head". No, dutchy, I don't assume that I am smart enough to "think" how these things were actually done, so I am forced to go to actual sources of information and learn how there were really done!But the problems that you bring out were considered in the design and tested for, read APOLLO EXPERIENCE REPORT - LUNAR MODULE LANDING GEAR SUBSYSTEM

Quote from: rabinoz

Lunar Landing Research Vehicle:
The Bell Aerosystems Lunar Landing Research Vehicle (LLRV) was an Apollo Project era program to build a simulator for the Moon landings. The LLRVs were used by the FRC, now known as the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, at Edwards Air Force Base, California, to study and analyze piloting techniques needed to fly and land the Apollo Lunar Module in the moon's low gravity environment.
[ quote]
Please stop wasting everybody's time demonstrating your total ignorance.

The internet totally screwed your mind.
You are inable to make one single coherent thought all by yourself.
As long as something is an online source you refuse to think for yourself, which happens to be all the time.

Dutchy, I can think for myself as well as anybody, but you cannot "think for yourself" about information on how things were actually done.

I don’t believe your copy paste nonsense, because i can think for myself !

Yes, you claim that you can think for yourself, but when you do that, without the correct information you get the wrong answer.
Before there were any "heavier than air" flying machines many who claimed to be able the "think for themselves" literally claimed that it was impossible.
Even Lord Kelvin remarked in 1895 that “heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible”.

An ability you  have handed over to others long ago...... sad....

Your thinking, without evidence, is totally useless and clearly leads you to believe so many totally incorrect things! It's so sad that so many are just like you!

And landing a device such fragile as the LM , after days crammed into a tincan,a trip of 300.000 +km, unknown psychological and physical status, last minute corrections ( avoid a crater), engine shut down, coming in at an angle, unknown touch down speed and impact implications......
.... could not have been simulated on earth !

If you bothered to read NASA's own reports, all of those things were considered and allowed for in the design.
Of course there were limits, which is why Neil Armstrong took over manual control to find a better landing site!

But, as much as possible was "simulated on earth", more was tested in space in earth and lunar orbit.
Then you must realise that gravity on the moon is only 1/6 that on earth, so an object will gain only 1/36 of the energy when falling a given distance. And look at the probes on three of the legs of the LM:

Those 1.5-metre-long metal rods below three of the four landing pads of the Lunar Module (LM) are the Lunar Surface Sensing Probes. As described in detail on this webpage, the Lunar Module’s designers at Grumman Aerospace were concerned that, in the final seconds of the powered descent, the fragile spacecraft — its aluminium alloy pressure-vessel skin being only 0.3 mm thick in places! — might be damaged either by exhaust gases blasted from the LM descent stage’s rocket engine nozzle being deflected upwards by the rapidly approaching lunar surface, or by particles of regolith (i.e. the lunar ‘soil’) being blown up by the exhaust blast. The designers were also concerned that large quantities of moon dust being blasted upward might obscure the astronauts’ view of the lunar surface.

Wallow in your abject ignorance if you like, dutchy, see if I care, but others with a more open mind might learn how things were done.

You and others don’t know how stuff works in Aerospace either.

You are too too funny!

But what saddens me so much is that you are not prepared to learn. You think that you can reason everything out with your superior intellect.

Learning is the process of acquiring new or modifying existing knowledge, behaviors, skills, values, or preferences...according to your beloved wiki !
The only thing you have done so far is copy paste pro NASA propaganda that cannot be disputed (according to you), because someone would have said something about a hoax and many outstanding Apollo scientists are mocked when even mentioning a grandscale moonlanding hoax.

Therefor you post your ''watchtower'' NASA propaganda from the internet that,... how else could it be,.... originate with that organisation itself.
The constructors have destroyed their Apollo data/technologies and so has NASA.
What we still have is the NASA updated propaganda that explains the hardware and procedures of the late sixties and early seventies.
Apparently most details are destroyed, otherwise the Chinese , Russians, Indians and Japanese would have used those detailed descriptions of the hardware & co to implement those in their own space program that allready has many advantages in many technological areas compared to Apollo.
But it seems not the case and the Apollo achievements are still unique and superiour compared to any nation's efforts.
On top of the list crossing the boundaries of LEO with a manned spacecraft !!!!!!!

Strange, because either something is extremely well documented and preserved or something isn't.
And when the NASA bandwagon needs it, they claim Apollo info is almost a form of ''open source'' available for anyone interrested in how the Apollo stuff worked.
But to me it seems not the case, because all other nation's struggle to implement any usefull data for their own space program.....we should have seen many nations going to the moon or beyond LEO if all was layout in almost ''open source'' detail.

Add to that don Pettit's comments about ''destroyed technologies'' and ''a painfull process to built it back'' and one realises that no one alive can rebuilt a working LM, Saturn 5 rocket,moon rover, radiation shielding, tele communication with the president and more.,.....
Sorry to tell you, but my critical thinking abilities are superiour over yours, that is a given !!

Wallow in your abject ignorance if you like, dutchy, see if I care, but others with a more open mind might learn how things were done.

No, you want to redirect others to NASA ''watchtower'' propaganda....that has nothing to do with ''how things work''

''How things work'' is rebuilding the Apollo hardware and demonstrating all it's supposed features in front of eager students and professionals.
Testing an astronaut in an Apollo moonsuit in a near vacuum chamber for a day in front of an audience.
Etc. Etc. Etc.

Only religious frauds like yourself, dwell in the propaganda only......
''the documentation from NASA itself is proof enough''.....no it isn't...it's propaganda !!
And you want the co readers to become an indoctrinated sheep like yourself.

Dutchy,  you do me too great an honour with all this attention. I really don't deserve it. 
But you must think that what I say has some influence, otherwise you'd ignore it!

Quote from: rabinoz on March 23, 2018, 05:48:16 PM

But what saddens me so much is that you are not prepared to learn. You think that you can reason everything out with your superior intellect.

Learning is the process of acquiring new or modifying existing knowledge, behaviors, skills, values, or preferences...according to your beloved wiki !

And learning for your is dragging stuff out of your imagination or from other moon hoaxers, never going back to see how it was really researched, planned for and done.
My sources go far wider than Wikipedia, but even Wikipedia is not single source and in good articles is very heavily referenced, so the original source material can easily be ascertained.

But, where are your sources? Your "common sense"?
Personally, I'm prepared to learn from the work of others, though I do check that it seems to fit reality - I'm quite prepared to learn new things,
but I do seem to be in good company.
         From Einstein we have, "The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know."
         and Oscar Wilde wrote, "I am not young enough to know everything."

The only thing you have done so far is copy paste pro NASA propaganda that cannot be disputed (according to you), because someone would have said something about a hoax and many outstanding Apollo scientists are mocked when even mentioning a grandscale moonlanding hoax.

Therefor you post your ''watchtower'' NASA propaganda from the internet that,... how else could it be,.... originate with that organisation itself.
The constructors have destroyed their Apollo data/technologies and so has NASA.

You rave on and on about "destroyed technology",  but, exactly what was destroyed? The productions line could not be "mothballed".

Apparently most details are destroyed, otherwise the Chinese , Russians, Indians and Japanese would have used those detailed descriptions of the hardware & co to implement those in their own space program that allready has many advantages in many technological areas compared to Apollo.

You don't make the slightest bit of sense!  The Russians were ahead of USA in most areas except in a manned landing on the moon.
Apollo cost the USA a tremendous amount of money, with the total NASA budget over the period 1962-1969 was $242 billion, in 2024 $s, then it rapidly dried up!
But the Russians did make some attempt to design a system, but failed and simply could not afford to go further, after who cares about 2nd place in a 2 horse race.

Then, just what technology would the Chinese, Indians and Japanese have even wanted to use? They wouldn't copy production lines etc.
In any case you claim that all Chinese, Indian and Japanese are fake anyway, especially when they show photos of Apollo landing sites and booster impacts.
All your claims are just imagination and conjecture!
 

But it seems not the case and the Apollo achievements are still unique and superiour compared to any nation's efforts.
On top of the list crossing the boundaries of LEO with a manned spacecraft !!!!!!!

What is so superior? but again, "On top of the list crossing the boundaries of LEO with a manned spacecraft" is just your opinion.
The Saturn Vs are still the heaviest lift vehicles, they could be rebuilt, but why? Why would anyone want to use 1960's technology?
Why? What is lost there? We now know far more about the VABs and other more important radiation than ever, nothing lost there.
And there is nothing lost in the ability to protect from the VAB radiation, but that is by no means the most serious radiation hazard for longer missions.
A week in the most intense VABs in the space shuttle might kill you, but who is going to spend a week there?
Even at 400 miles the radiation is too high for an extended stay in the ISS.

Strange, because either something is extremely well documented and preserved or something isn't.
And when the NASA bandwagon needs it, they claim Apollo info is almost a form of ''open source'' available for anyone interrested in how the Apollo stuff worked.
But to me it seems not the case, because all other nation's struggle to implement any usefull data for their own space program.....we should have seen many nations going to the moon or beyond LEO if all was layout in almost ''open source'' detail.

Where is your evidence for "all other nation's struggling to implement any useful data for their own space program" - more stuff dragged from a fertile imagination?

Why? Manned missions are extremely expensive and no-one would spend that sort of money for no purpose. In 1969 it was part of the "cold war".

Add to that don Pettit's comments about ''destroyed technologies'' and ''a painfull process to built it back'' and one realises that no one alive can rebuilt a working LM, Saturn 5 rocket,moon rover, radiation shielding, tele communication with the president and more.,.....

Read all of what Don Pettit actually said: Nasa astronaut Don Pettit: Next logical step is to go back to the Moon - then Mars and beyond.
Now, ask yourself whether that sounds like someone who doubts Apollo, ISS or space travel in general?

Some of your claims would now be much easier, "radiation shielding" is far better understood now and "tele communication with the president" would now be a trivial issue.
You have no idea of the advances in communications technology since that time.
If someone told me that a simple copper pair phone link could transmit data at 24 Mbps, I would have claimed that it was totally impossible and "proved it"!
Silly me, I wasn't too clued of on Claude Shannon at the time and there was no way to implement his information theory real time anyway.

Yes, building the same technologies would be expensive, but no-one would dream of doing it.
Should we build 1969 cars or aircraft

But there simply is zero demand for manned space mission. Sure, many might want them, but no-one would front up with the trillions of dollars.
Apollo was a specialised vehicle to get three people to the moon, land two, then get them home - it did scientific research on the moon, but nothing else of value.
I'm no fan of massive lunar bases and mining on the moon unless there is an economic reason for it.
You might read, How We Lost The Ability To Travel To The Moon. We would never want to go to the moon in Apollo again. It would be in a totally new and far more modern vehicle.

Yes, just ask yourself, Why would we ever want to send people into space using 50 year old technology?

Sorry to tell you, but my critical thinking abilities are superiour over yours, that is a given !!

I won't fight you on that, dutchy, but one's own opinion of one's "critical thinking abilities" is likely to be wildly astray.
But I refuse to believe all that stuff that pours from your amazing intellect.

I'm much more modest and don't claim to be able to see at a glance that, for example, the LM was "too fragile", so I have to research how it was designed, constructed and tested. Not only that, but I have the background to understand that, obviously you don't.

Quote

Wallow in your abject ignorance if you like, dutchy, see if I care, but others with a more open mind might learn how things were done.

No, you want to redirect others to NASA ''watchtower'' propaganda....that has nothing to do with ''how things work''

Judging other people's motives seem to be a favourite past-time of people like you - "Judge not that . . . ."!

''How things work'' is rebuilding the Apollo hardware and demonstrating all it's supposed features in front of eager students and professionals.
Testing an astronaut in an Apollo moonsuit in a near vacuum chamber for a day in front of an audience.
Etc. Etc. Etc.

That's your opinion, but that would be a total waste of time and money!
If the reader understands what is written that does explain how things work! It's you that has no understanding.
But even if these demonstrations were done, you wouldn't believe it, you would still find some excuse.
Look, there are numerous current space mission in recent times, including lunar orbiters that photograph the Apollo landing sites.
You claim that they are all faked.

Only religious frauds like yourself, dwell in the propaganda only......
''the documentation from NASA itself is proof enough''.....no it isn't...it's propaganda !!
And you want the co readers to become an indoctrinated sheep like yourself.

In what way am I a "religious frauds"?  Judging again !
Yes, all you have left is to demean all who don't believe as you do, but I find it strange that so many "Manned Lunar Landing Hoaxers" still accept that the earth is a rotating Globe, that unmanned space missions are genuine and that even manned LEO missions are real.

So, I really don't care much about the Apollo missions. Though I believe that they are real, and will do my best to set the record straight when you and others post straight guesswork about why things could not work.

This, however, is the Flat Earth Society and proof or otherwise of the Apollo missions is quite irrelevant to the shape of the earth.

By the way, you seem to totally ignore: Apollo 16 floodlight failure? « Reply #169 on: March 22, 2018, 08:41:56 AM »
Which contained:

Have you ever read this:

Quote

War and Pieces
One NASA protagonist, attempting to put things in perspective while demonstrating the weakness of the argument of the Apollo hoax theory, asked one of our readers, given the premise that Apollo was hoaxed, whether he thought that WWII was hoaxed? This question muddles the two principal arguments concerning Apollo:

          A. That we never went to the Moon.
          B. That the official record is not the true representation of manned lunar exploration.

We have never stated that human beings did not explore the lunar surface. Our hypothesis has always been that although research evidence suggests that the named Apollo astronauts did not venture beyond low Earth orbit, in all probability surrogates were sent to the Moon in the late 1960s.

Read all about it in: AULIS Online, Apollo Investigation

You Lunar Mission Hoax proponents sure come in all shapes and sizes, but most, except for a few die-hards like yourself,

believe the space exploration is real and it's just the Apollo missions that were faked.

And above we see some even claiming that "surrogates were sent to the Moon in the late 1960s", just that "the named Apollo astronauts did not venture beyond low Earth orbit".

As someone said, you're a weird mob!

If you Lunar Mission Hoax proponents really were genuine you would come out with a single coherent story, but you don't!
You, Dutchy, claim all space exploration is a hoax, yet many (maybe most) others quite accept manned LEO and/or unmanned missions and satellites, even GEO satellites.
Then we have some even claiming that
Remember that the AULIS Online, Apollo Investigation site is a Apollo Lunar Mission hoax site.

So, basically, Dutchy, you sound very much like a "voice crying in the wilderness" - does it get lonely?

Dutchy, it is true Rabinoz copies and pastes stuff. But the stuff he provides is relevant. You, and totallackey, seem unable to do the same to back your claims which is huge problem when trying to convince people.

And not sure what we can learn from cherry picking words someone said. Have you asked what Don Pettit meant when he said things about tech having been destroyed? Or did you just extrapolate on your own?

Dutchy, it is true Rabinoz copies and pastes stuff. But the stuff he provides is relevant. You, and totallackey, seem unable to do the same to back your claims which is huge problem when trying to convince people.

If you think that copy paste info convinces people then i have a few observations  to make:

Are ’people’ really to dumb to use the search functions on their computer properly while most topics only need a straight forward Google search to immidiatly find the info rabinoz posts ? Try for yourself and you’ll hit the jackpot of NASA propaganda immidiatly !
Ahhh ‘rabinoz’ thanks for your copy paste insight, it was really beyond my own capabilities to find all you were able to find on page one after the proper Google search
is rabinoz’ copy paste Apollo info relevant for people to dumb or to lazy to use a search function ? Or a bit of both ?
I have presented lots of proof in the past about conflicting testimonies of Apollo astronauts and other mostly unknown outlandish claims.
I did so by presenting ‘word for word’ testimonies and all involved footage....i am not going to do that again; but here a brief summery only about Apollo astronauts:

1 Buzz Aldrin gave three different explanations about an unknown phenomena on their tail while going to the moon
1a Earliest claim was that they claimed a UFO / light was on their tail and they spoke about it with ground control in carefull wording while being in shock
1b Later claims included a possible loose flap reflecting the sunlight
1c Final claim was that they knew from the onset that it was something loose from the capsule and no one ever suggested something ‘alien’.

2 Neil Armstrong claimed the sky was pitch black in cislunar space while Edgar Mitchell claimed from the exact same spot that the stars were ten times brighter and ten times more numerous than on a dark night on earth...... an enlightening experience.
But he was the only one it seems.........

3 Neil deGrasse Tyson says the stars on the daylight side of the moon should reveal themselves for a person (only a fully equiped astronaut can stand on the moon,....no other hypothetical situation possible on the moon) just like during the night on earth.
Neil Armstrong did not see a single star on the moon and later astronauts have claimed to have only seen a few

4 Edgar Mitchell claimed on many occasions, both domestically and worldwide that implemented Roswell UFO techniques brought them to the moon and he heard from insiders in high places he considered friends.
That puts all Apollo technological explanations in doubt, because we have never heard about so much as a ‘Roswell’ battery.
Or Mitchell was talking out of his ass, which is very damning for the official storyline of man made/ invented Apollo hardware...... the more while he was such an acknowledged stand out Apollo astronaut himself.
But he could go to whatever symposium to spread his Roswell insight and of course his preference for Budism after seeing ten times brighter stars in cislunar space.

5 A linguistic expert has analised the whole Patrick Moore / Neil Armstrong interview.
The conclusions are that the chances that Neil himself took part in the claimed moon adventures are extremely small.
A conclusion that the expert himself made reconsider the whole Apollo era which was never in doubt before.

And i have presented many more in great detail, only to find out that lairs and frauds can get away with anything...... this deep runs the childhood dream of going to the moon.

And not sure what we can learn from cherry picking words someone said. Have you asked what Don Pettit meant when he said things about tech having been destroyed? Or did you just extrapolate on your own?

Did you watch the interview yourself ?

Quote from: rabinoz on March 23, 2018, 05:48:16 PM

But what saddens me so much is that you are not prepared to learn. You think that you can reason everything out with your superior intellect.

Learning is the process of acquiring new or modifying existing knowledge, behaviors, skills, values, or preferences...according to your beloved wiki !
The only thing you have done so far is copy paste pro NASA propaganda that cannot be disputed (according to you), because someone would have said something about a hoax and many outstanding Apollo scientists are mocked when even mentioning a grandscale moonlanding hoax.

Therefor you post your ''watchtower'' NASA propaganda from the internet that,... how else could it be,.... originate with that organisation itself.
The constructors have destroyed their Apollo data/technologies and so has NASA.
What we still have is the NASA updated propaganda that explains the hardware and procedures of the late sixties and early seventies.
Apparently most details are destroyed, otherwise the Chinese , Russians, Indians and Japanese would have used those detailed descriptions of the hardware & co to implement those in their own space program that allready has many advantages in many technological areas compared to Apollo.
But it seems not the case and the Apollo achievements are still unique and superiour compared to any nation's efforts.
On top of the list crossing the boundaries of LEO with a manned spacecraft !!!!!!!

Strange, because either something is extremely well documented and preserved or something isn't.
And when the NASA bandwagon needs it, they claim Apollo info is almost a form of ''open source'' available for anyone interrested in how the Apollo stuff worked.
But to me it seems not the case, because all other nation's struggle to implement any usefull data for their own space program.....we should have seen many nations going to the moon or beyond LEO if all was layout in almost ''open source'' detail.

Add to that don Pettit's comments about ''destroyed technologies'' and ''a painfull process to built it back'' and one realises that no one alive can rebuilt a working LM, Saturn 5 rocket,moon rover, radiation shielding, tele communication with the president and more.,.....
Sorry to tell you, but my critical thinking abilities are superiour over yours, that is a given !!

Quote

Wallow in your abject ignorance if you like, dutchy, see if I care, but others with a more open mind might learn how things were done.

No, you want to redirect others to NASA ''watchtower'' propaganda....that has nothing to do with ''how things work''

''How things work'' is rebuilding the Apollo hardware and demonstrating all it's supposed features in front of eager students and professionals.
Testing an astronaut in an Apollo moonsuit in a near vacuum chamber for a day in front of an audience.
Etc. Etc. Etc.

Only religious frauds like yourself, dwell in the propaganda only......
''the documentation from NASA itself is proof enough''.....no it isn't...it's propaganda !!
And you want the co readers to become an indoctrinated sheep like yourself.

So far Dutchy all you have done is claim that all information that disagrees with your preconceived ideas is propaganda, you offer no actual evidence to support this.  You also ignore all evidence to the contrary.  When someone says it would be difficult you take that to mean it's not possible.
Have you never worked on a project that is difficult?  It seems to me that you would be someone I would not want on my team.  You simply give up if something is hard.
Sometimes tasks require hard work and a lot of it.  That doesn't make them impossible.
Nothing in your posts indicate any real level of critical thinking.  It only displays an attitude of someone who doesn't like hard work and is willing to accept any excuse to avoid it.

”[W]e destroyed that technology, and it is painful process to build it back again.”
-Don Pettit

That is what he said. To me that sounds like they had it, they used it, and even though it is no more, it can be built again. I really do not see how you can take it to mean something else.

And if you feel it is ambiguous, why don’t you make an effort to find out what he really meant?

EDIT: Has Don Pettit said we did not fly to the Moon? That I have missed, if there is such an interview. And what will you say when China gets there? Or is it okay for them to be there, it is just NASA who are forbidden?

”[W]e destroyed that technology, and it is painful process to build it back again.”
-Don Pettit

That is what he said. To me that sounds like they had it, they used it, and even though it is no more, it can be built again. I really do not see how you can take it to mean something else.

And if you feel it is ambiguous, why don’t you make an effort to find out what he really meant?

EDIT: Has Don Pettit said we did not fly to the Moon? That I have missed, if there is such an interview.

This is what Don Pettit said :
I'd go back to the moon in a nano second...,
Problem is we don't have the technology to do that anymore
We used to, butwe destroyed that technology and it's a painfull process to built it back again
.........
And the only limit to human future in our own imagination.

Since when is 'building back' something still understood in detail considered painfull for hardworking Americans ?
Only extremely lazy people would call something that only needs a bit of work to reanimate 'painfull'

Don claims he wants to go back in a nano second and according to your logic they only have to built back familiar stuff they meticulously documentated in the NASA archives
That makes Don a lazy spokesman !!!!!

1 He wants to go back to the moon in a nanosecond
2 They can rebuilt everything if wanted
3 But that is considered painfull and therefor we focuss on mars instead
4 only human imagination is a boundary of what lies in our future capabilities ( exept for building back Apollo stuff,...... that's to painfull to deal with, going to mars is what humans do )

You know your reasoning is flawed don't you ?

No one went to no moon and in order to mask it they claim they forgot how to do it,....... embarrasing the Apollo fanbase who has claimed for decades every detail about Apollo is known, understood and archived.
And now that fanbase must twist Don Pettit's clear words as if he meant they still know how to re-built everything but can't because it's painfull because going to mars is less difficult and only Don Pettit wants to go back to the moon in a nano second, but  NASA has been there, done that ....so no need or wish to go back according to the fanboys.
And the only painfull thing according to the Apollo bandwagon is the time consuming building process !

WTF, since when have Americans  become such a workshy bunch of sissies that they consider a bit of work ( only using well known data ) painfull ?


Hahahaha i hope you understand i feel mighty strong in my convictions !

Problem is we don't have the technology to do that anymore

So you admit they had it, right?

We start shooting more stuff up there, and your world will come crashing down.

Quote from: dutchy on March 25, 2018, 04:33:23 AM

Problem is we don't have the technology to do that anymore

So you admit they had it, right?

We start shooting more stuff up there, and your world will come crashing down.

Difficult isn't it ? For once acknowledging that things are extremely conflicting ?
So re- direct ( just as rabinoz)  on other things.

The moonlandings will be disclosed as a hoax,.... it will open people's mind about the true shape and nature of our universe.
Once they understand that authorities lie about something that big for that long , they will come to terms with reality much more.
Don Pettit tries to do some damage control, but not for very long....

Quote from: rvlvr on March 24, 2018, 11:54:57 PM

Dutchy, it is true Rabinoz copies and pastes stuff. But the stuff he provides is relevant. You, and totallackey, seem unable to do the same to back your claims which is huge problem when trying to convince people.

If you think that copy paste info convinces people then i have a few observations  to make:

Are ’people’ really to dumb to use the search functions on their computer properly while most topics only need a straight forward Google search to immidiatly find the info rabinoz posts ? Try for yourself and you’ll hit the jackpot of NASA propaganda immidiatly !
Ahhh ‘rabinoz’ thanks for your copy paste insight, it was really beyond my own capabilities to find all you were able to find on page one after the proper Google search
is rabinoz’ copy paste Apollo info relevant for people to dumb or to lazy to use a search function ? Or a bit of both ?
I have presented lots of proof in the past about conflicting testimonies of Apollo astronauts and other mostly unknown outlandish claims.
I did so by presenting ‘word for word’ testimonies and all involved footage....i am not going to do that again; but here a brief summery only about Apollo astronauts:
<< No-evidence of faked Manned Lunar Landing deleted >>

No, Mr Dutchy, my "copy paste Apollo info", as you call is a counter to you and your ilk that take little extracts from interviews, then spin your web of deceit with it!

Quote from: rvlvr

And not sure what we can learn from cherry picking words someone said. Have you asked what Don Pettit meant when he said things about tech having been destroyed? Or did you just extrapolate on your own?

Did you watch the interview yourself ?

You might at least posts a link to it! All I have found is little out-takes on Hoaxer Videos.

This might be worth reading again, How We Lost The Ability To Travel To The Moon. We would never want to go to the moon in Apollo again. It would be in a totally new and far more modern vehicle.

Did you read this?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Quote from: dutchy

Add to that don Pettit's comments about ''destroyed technologies'' and ''a painfull process to built it back'' and one realises that no one alive can rebuilt a working LM, Saturn 5 rocket,moon rover, radiation shielding, tele communication with the president and more.,.....

Warning, warning, warning, mucho copy-n-pasto! 

Read what Don Pettit actually said: Nasa astronaut Don Pettit: Next logical step is to go back to the Moon - then Mars and beyond.
Now, ask yourself whether that sounds like someone who doubts Apollo, ISS or space travel in general?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nasa astronaut Don Pettit: Next logical step is to go back to the Moon - then Mars and beyond
International collaboration is central to the future of human space exploration – that and imagination.

"The next logical step in human space flight is to return to the Moon", Nasa astronaut Don Pettit has said. "Unfortunately, we no longer have the technology to get there and rebuilding it is painfully time-consuming and expensive".

Pettit was speaking at the Space for Innovation conference at London's Science Museum – an event held to highlight the future of human and robotic space travel. One of the focuses of the meeting was looking at how the International Space Station has served as a centrepiece of human space exploration", with scientists from over 90 nations working together to further innovation.

As one of the astronauts who worked on the construction of the ISS, Pettit told IBTimes UK the changes to the space station since it launched in 1998 have been huge: "My first trip to space station was a construction site. It's like living in your house while you're building it. Having a bucket where the kitchen sink is supposed to be but your still having to make dinner. As it improved the power capability increased by a power of four, the volume increased by a factor of three and the crew by a factor of two."

Since his first visit, Pettit has been to the ISS on several missions – two of which were long duration stays. As a result, he has seen first-hand the importance of international collaboration between different nations across the globe to further human achievements in space.

Astronauts on the ISS: Anatoly Ivanishin (L), Don Pettit (C) and Andre Kuipers (R) Don Pettit, Nasa

"International collaboration I believe is essential for space exploration it provides robustness to the technology of exploration," he said. "Each country has a different means of approaching the same problem and when one countries technology fails you can rely on the other countries technology to get you through that particular issue.

"A classic example is with space shuttle Colombia burning up in the atmosphere, space station continued because we relied on Russia's Soyuz rockets. That's an example where international aspect of the space station adds a robustness. Where one countries technology fails other countries can pick up the slack and keep the process going."

And this is something the ESA is working towards. Speaking conference, director general Jan Woerner said the agency is looking to open up to partnerships beyond the current 22 member states.

"ESA is international organisation," he said. "We have the possibility to join forces with every state in the world. We have this diverse structure already, we know how to handle outside collaboration. One of the clear understanding to open up to more partnerships, but also to open up to more partnerships in industry."

One mission Pettit is keen on is the ESA's proposal for a Moon village – a base on the surface of the Moon where scientists can work, while also potentially serving as a launch pad for future missions. "The lunar base is bound to happen – it's the next logical step," he said. "I'd go to the moon in a nanosecond. The problem is we don't have the technology to do that anymore. We used to but we destroyed that technology and it's a painful process to build it back again."

NASA is currently working on projects to develop a manned mission to Mars. However, the technology required is still some way off. "Going to Mars should be one of the next series of steps humans do. But the first step should be going back to the moon for a number of technological and exploration reasons. Then after that Mars and then maybe high orbit in Venus atmosphere, maybe to Europa."

For now, however, manned space travel remains within the confines of the ISS – which is certainly no bad thing. Speaking of the experience of being there, he said: "For me sleeping in a weightless environment is wonderful. You wake up in the morning and you feel 20 years old again. You're ready to charge off on the day.

"It's wonderful to look at earth from space. I look at it from the eyes of a scientist type where you can see all sorts of geological features. There's a lot of features on earth that you can't see if you're walking on it – you've got to step back. It is privileged position. I've had the privilege of seeing two total solar eclipses from orbit. I've never seen from earth, but from orbit seen two. The amazing thing is you can see the shadow cast from Earth."

Both on the ISS and back on Earth, Pettit has become known for his photography. He is due to release a book of his images later this year. He believes engagement with space exploration has become far greater as a result of being able to share pictures with the public back on Earth.

"I love photography whether on or off of Earth. Taking pictures in space presents a wonderful environment to do a range of imagery that captures people's imagination – because it's something they haven't seen before.

"Photography plays a central role in sharing the experience of exploration. How much photography do we have from 17th century? Obviously none because it wasn't invented. But just think what they could have shared in their transoceanic voyages if had photography. It really came into the field of exploration maybe in 1860s and certainly was central to the arctic and Antarctic exploration – sharing what those expeditions were about and the conditions under which people lived. And that is what makes photography central to sharing the experience of space to all the people on the planet."

And it is imagination that will encourage human space exploration of the future: "The only limit to human future is in our own imaginations," he said. "And our willingness to do something about it."

From: Nasa astronaut Don Pettit: Next logical step is to go back to the Moon - then Mars and beyond

So, dutchy, you are the (pretend) expert in psychological analysis.

Some other technologies that have been "destroyed"...

Rotary dial telephones.
Motorola bag phones.
Cathode ray tube televisions.
Vacuum tubes, (not including my bitchin guitar amps and some niche audio equipment).
Tall ship building.
Horse drawn carriages.
Whale oil refinement and usage.
Steam locomotives.

etc.. etc...

Technology advances. That doesn't mean the data and knowledge gained through it's development and implementation is lost.

Since when is 'building back' something still understood in detail considered painfull for hardworking Americans ?
Only extremely lazy people would call something that only needs a bit of work to reanimate 'painfull'

If you think that building a human rated super heavy lift rocket and associated capsule and lander is a painless process, then you don't know how government projects work.

Quote from: rvlvr on March 25, 2018, 04:36:13 AM

Quote from: dutchy on March 25, 2018, 04:33:23 AM

Problem is we don't have the technology to do that anymore

So you admit they had it, right?

We start shooting more stuff up there, and your world will come crashing down.

Difficult isn't it ? For once acknowledging that things are extremely conflicting ?
So re- direct ( just as rabinoz)  on other things.

Tell me what I think is conflicting?

I fully trust and believe we went to the Moon, and will do so again.

You say we have not been up there. You have a hard time understanding what Pettit says in no way states none of the lunar stuff did not happen. We says we had the tech, but don't have that tech anymore.

Quote from: dutchy on March 25, 2018, 04:33:23 AM

Since when is 'building back' something still understood in detail considered painfull for hardworking Americans ?
Only extremely lazy people would call something that only needs a bit of work to reanimate 'painfull'

If you think that building a human rated super heavy lift rocket and associated capsule and lander is a painless process, then you don't know how government projects work.

You mean a government under the leadership of Bush, Obama and Trump ( and Buzz Alldrin at his side ) all confirmed they wanted to go back to the moon !!

Is it those pesky congressmen who refuse to see the bigger overall picture, because going back to the moon is the first step before jumping interplanetary ?

So we have three presidents, Don Pettit as a NASA spokesman all claiming they want to go back to the moon ( Don even asap/nano second ), but it is still painfull because i don't understand how government projects work.
Hahahahahahahahaha

I think i somewhat follow the line of reasoning from Don Pettit over your pathetic line of reasoning, that they no longer have the technology to go to the moon because it was destroyed.
The only difference is..... i add the technologies weren't there in the first place to successfully go to the moon and back !

Quote from: rvlvr on March 25, 2018, 04:36:13 AM

Quote from: dutchy on March 25, 2018, 04:33:23 AM

Problem is we don't have the technology to do that anymore

So you admit they had it, right?

We start shooting more stuff up there, and your world will come crashing down.

Difficult isn't it ? For once acknowledging that things are extremely conflicting ?
So re- direct ( just as rabinoz)  on other things.

The moonlandings will be disclosed as a hoax,.... it will open people's mind about the true shape and nature of our universe.
Once they understand that authorities lie about something that big for that long , they will come to terms with reality much more.
Don Pettit tries to do some damage control, but not for very long....

You have not shown any conflict.  You have only shown that you think if something is difficult that equates to impossible.  That's not the case.

So far, the ONLY understanding that dutchy has displayed is his ability to type the word "hoax" into the YouTube search bad.

So far, the ONLY understanding that dutchy has displayed is his ability to type the word "hoax" into the YouTube search bad.

Just try it straight..... don’t hoke it up

Quote from: dutchy on March 25, 2018, 04:42:13 AM

Quote from: rvlvr on March 25, 2018, 04:36:13 AM

Quote from: dutchy on March 25, 2018, 04:33:23 AM

Problem is we don't have the technology to do that anymore

So you admit they had it, right?

We start shooting more stuff up there, and your world will come crashing down.

Difficult isn't it ? For once acknowledging that things are extremely conflicting ?
So re- direct ( just as rabinoz)  on other things.

The moonlandings will be disclosed as a hoax,.... it will open people's mind about the true shape and nature of our universe.
Once they understand that authorities lie about something that big for that long , they will come to terms with reality much more.
Don Pettit tries to do some damage control, but not for very long....

You have not shown any conflict.  You have only shown that you think if something is difficult that equates to impossible.  That's not the case.

You mean that they implemented Roswell techniques in the Apollo program ?
Edgar Mitchell sure claimed they did !
Care to elaborate on Dr. Mitchels claims, who all agree about ..was an outstanding astronaut and professional in every thinkable way !

I really expect you to answer this one instead of beating around the bush.......

Quote from: Badxtoss on March 25, 2018, 06:20:07 AM

Quote from: dutchy on March 25, 2018, 04:42:13 AM

Quote from: rvlvr on March 25, 2018, 04:36:13 AM

Quote from: dutchy on March 25, 2018, 04:33:23 AM

Problem is we don't have the technology to do that anymore

So you admit they had it, right?

We start shooting more stuff up there, and your world will come crashing down.

Difficult isn't it ? For once acknowledging that things are extremely conflicting ?
So re- direct ( just as rabinoz)  on other things.

The moonlandings will be disclosed as a hoax,.... it will open people's mind about the true shape and nature of our universe.
Once they understand that authorities lie about something that big for that long , they will come to terms with reality much more.
Don Pettit tries to do some damage control, but not for very long....

You have not shown any conflict.  You have only shown that you think if something is difficult that equates to impossible.  That's not the case.

You mean that they implemented Roswell techniques in the Apollo program ?
Edgar Mitchell sure claimed they did !
Care to elaborate on Dr. Mitchels claims, who all agree about ..was an outstanding astronaut and professional in every thinkable way !

I really expect you to answer this one instead of beating around the bush.......

I don't know anything about the claims you are making.  You need to elaborate a bit.

Dutchy, you quote Pettit saying we had the tech, and then you say we did not have the tech. Why quote someone when you do not believe what he says to try to drive your point?

You are conflicted. Us rest far less so.

Quote from: markjo on March 25, 2018, 06:00:05 AM

Quote from: dutchy on March 25, 2018, 04:33:23 AM

Since when is 'building back' something still understood in detail considered painfull for hardworking Americans ?
Only extremely lazy people would call something that only needs a bit of work to reanimate 'painfull'

If you think that building a human rated super heavy lift rocket and associated capsule and lander is a painless process, then you don't know how government projects work.

You mean a government under the leadership of Bush, Obama and Trump ( and Buzz Alldrin at his side ) all confirmed they wanted to go back to the moon !!

Is it those pesky congressmen who refuse to see the bigger overall picture, because going back to the moon is the first step before jumping interplanetary ?

Are you kidding?  Congress can barely keep the government funded.  What makes you think that they think that going back to the moon or to Mars is a priority?

So we have three presidents, Don Pettit as a NASA spokesman all claiming they want to go back to the moon ( Don even asap/nano second ), but it is still painfull because i don't understand how government projects work.
Hahahahahahahahaha

That's right, you have no clue.  It's hard enough to just build a super heavy lift rocket, but it gets that much more complicated when you consider how government contracts tend to be spread across many different contractors and subcontractors across many different states.  Some have described it as a welfare system for the aerospace industry. 

I think i somewhat follow the line of reasoning from Don Pettit over your pathetic line of reasoning, that they no longer have the technology to go to the moon because it was destroyed.
The only difference is..... i add the technologies weren't there in the first place to successfully go to the moon and back !

The technologies that we don't have right now for a moon landing is a lunar lander and a super heavy lift rocket to get it there.  The reason that we don't have them is because we haven't needed them for the last 45 years or so.

BTW, the Apollo moon missions were relatively short duration missions of less than 2 weeks so carrying enough supplies wasn't too much of a problem.  Any modern moon or Mars mission would be much longer duration, so they would need to take a lot more infrastructure with them.  Right now, they're working on developing the technologies for that infrastructure.

If you think that building a human rated super heavy lift rocket and associated capsule and lander is a painless process, then you don't know how government projects work.

I think that building a super rocket, capsule and lander with all the availble data of every Apollo aspect shouldn’t be that difficult and surely not painfull.
It gets painfull to do it from scratch as if Apollo hardware data hasn’t been meticulously documented and archived over the years.
In the Netherlands we had a single induvidual who rebuilt a Golden age sailboat using the same technigues and woods as those that were used in the 17the century,......that would qualify for ‘a painfull process’ to built it back again !

Are you kidding?  Congress can barely keep the government funded.  What makes you think that they think that going back to the moon or to Mars is a priority ?

Are you feeling well ? I mentioned congress as the only possible obstacle,..... the rest wants to go back to the moon !

That's right, you have no clue.  It's hard enough to just build a super heavy lift rocket, but it gets that much more complicated when you consider how government contracts tend to be spread across many different contractors and subcontractors across many different states.

Ahhh we don’t have the blueprints then ?
Destroyed ?

Dutchy, you quote Pettit saying we had the tech, and then you say we did not have the tech. Why quote someone when you do not believe what he says to try to drive your point?

You are conflicted. Us rest far less so.

Satire ,...... keep your focus !

Quote from: rvlvr on March 25, 2018, 07:40:04 AM

Dutchy, you quote Pettit saying we had the tech, and then you say we did not have the tech. Why quote someone when you do not believe what he says to try to drive your point?

You are conflicted. Us rest far less so.

Satire ,...... keep your focus !

I admit it has been difficult!

Quote from: markjo on March 25, 2018, 08:25:19 AM

If you think that building a human rated super heavy lift rocket and associated capsule and lander is a painless process, then you don't know how government projects work.

I think that building a super rocket, capsule and lander with all the availble data of every Apollo aspect shouldn’t be that difficult and surely not painfull.

If you really believe that, it explains a lot.

It gets painfull to do it from scratch as if Apollo hardware data hasn’t been meticulously documented and archived over the years.

It's still painfully expensive to build, even though the hardware specs are known. One huge advantage we have now is that it's now known that a manned moon landing and return can be done.

In the Netherlands we had a single induvidual who rebuilt a Golden age sailboat using the same technigues and woods as those that were used in the 17the century,......that would qualify for ‘a painfull process’ to built it back again !

Cool! Maybe he can build a Saturn V next. You suggest it shouldn't be that difficult.

Ahhh we don’t have the blueprints then ?
Destroyed ?

Says who? The idea that all copies of the Apollo blueprints and specifications were destroyed is an urban legend.

Regardless, it doesn't matter, even if it were true. The Saturn V is obsolete; it was designed, at a time when cost was no object, for one purpose - to get Apollo to the moon - which is why none were built since the Apollo program was cancelled once cost did become an object. Though all that engineering and testing had already been done, and the design and concept were proven, they were terribly expensive to build and launch, even back in the day when the specialized fabrication and handling equipment was operating and ready to go, technicians skilled and experienced in building and launching them were on call, and all of the plans were right next to many desks and drafting tables. It was a truly awesome machine that did a splendid job at the one thing it was designed and built for, but we know how to build better rockets and spacecraft these days.

Says who? The idea that all copies of the Apollo blueprints and specifications were destroyed is an urban legend.

Regardless, it doesn't matter, even if it were true. The Saturn V is obsolete; it was designed, at a time when cost was no object, for one purpose - to get Apollo to the moon - which is why none were built since the Apollo program was cancelled once cost did become an object. Though all that engineering and testing had already been done, and the design and concept were proven, they were terribly expensive to build and launch, even back in the day when the specialized fabrication and handling equipment was operating and ready to go, technicians skilled and experienced in building and launching them were on call, and all of the plans were right next to many desks and drafting tables. It was a truly awesome machine that did a splendid job at the one thing it was designed and built for, but we know how to build better rockets and spacecraft these days.

Ahhh we know how to built better rockets ??
In what way ?
Didn't Don Pettit claim it was impossible to go back to the moon now, despite the fact he really wanted to go back in a nano second IF possible  ?
So what's better about rockets ''these days'' if we cannot go to the moon with a manned spaceflight ?
Better fuel consumption and other irrelevant specs ? 

Don't you understand that they want a rocket just as good as a Saturn 5....it doesn't have to get any  better, simply capable of going to the moon.

Your post is a potpourri of nonsense and untrues.
They built better rockets nowadays, but incapable of going to the moon
It's an urban legend that that all copies of the Apollo blueprints and specifications were destroyed, but it is still impossible to even copy the Saturn 5 using the available blueprints, because uhhhhh it is expensive and painfull to built it back because in 1969 they had skillfull Saturn 5 workers, lots of money and specialised factories,..... but our modern rockets are better !!!

Doesn't it make you feel ackward when you read your own posts ?