HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)

Quote from: JackBlack on July 22, 2019, 03:00:44 PM

Quote from: magellanclavichord on July 22, 2019, 07:03:07 AM

Going to the moon does not disprove the flatness of the Earth.

It destroys the common FE model.

Yes. The common model is flawed. We need an uncommon model. I admit to being disappointed in those FEers who are so inflexible in their model that they are forced to invent silly conspiracy theories to back up their flawed model, rather than revising the model to be more in line with reality.

Notably, the duration of a conspiracy is inversely related to the number of people involved. A conspiracy of five people, if they are careful and lucky, can be maintained for a few years. A conspiracy of a hundred people might last a few weeks or a month. A conspiracy of a thousand people will fall apart within a day. And a conspiracy of ten thousand people won't last for five minutes. There's no way that all the world's governments and space agencies, or even just NASA, could maintain a conspiracy overnight.

I'm not going to get into the old fruitless argument, but a correct model of FE must be one that does not stand upon a belief in a massive conspiracy. The common model fails this test. An uncommon model is needed.

Correct
All roads lead to conspiracy.
Where does yours lead?
What would an uncommom model consist of when taking scientists at their word, except to the limit the world is a ball?

Quote from: Stash on July 22, 2019, 03:59:59 PM

Incredible. The crazy part is the disingenuous desperation: Take images, slated for panoramas and such, blow them up, place them side by side, create a meme, all saying "How can this be?!?" Completely out of context and out of the reality. All to forward a notion that fakery is involved. Maybe if one is a conspiracy theorist it's ok to fudge evidence because you think it serves the greater good of what you're sure of, exposing conspiracy?

The issue is do those making it actually believe?
I have always held that the majority of people making this "evidence" don't believe at all and know what they are saying is built upon lies. They aren't doing it to promote the truth but to try to have people rebel and overthrow the government, or to simply line their pockets. They are like snake oil salesmen.

One I found particularly stupid was someone claiming the ISS had to be fake because an astronaut dissolves as they leave the room, where the footage was a loop of this repeatedly playing, with a dissolve effect added to complete the loop.

Yeah, I know, it's quite the conundrum for me. I kind of think there are two camps: Those making the evidence and those feeding on and spreading the evidence. Within which are probably many camps. Not to say that all contrary viewpoints, investigations, deep divings, etc, are not warranted. In fact welcomed. But it's just when I see stuff like this where it's manufactured to bait. (I actually sound like a skepti diatribe, but in reverse - So let me reverse that and clarify)

In this particular case, I see a lot manipulation, omission, heavy editing, and this instance being a prime example: Absolute disregard for factual documentation/photographic evidence and a meme making juggernaut to sate a rabid conspiratorial appetite. And the likes of our good friend and foe, Dutchy, getting rope-a-doped into it when he may actually have some salient points to make. All of which takes the oxygen out of what points he may have.
We are all privy and subject to our own biases. But we really need to separate the wheat from the chaff. And in this instance, it's all chaff.

Both my parents have worked at NASA for 20+ years. I grew up in kemah, TX. They always stirred away when I asked them about things like this. My Dad always said " quit being a conspiracy theorist " my mom always looked at me like she felt bad for lying to me. They provided me with a great life, great opportunities. But at what expense?

Right next to Johnson Space Center.   What sort of work did your parents do at NASA?

So what is the trickery supposedly ?

Even when you claim the angle of the LEM is different than another problem occurs. The mountain top is different !

So what is the trickery supposedly ?

You've been taken in by a meme of three altered images baked inside a loss of objectivity cake that tastes good going down without being able to see the breadth and depth of all the images from all the angles.

Quote from: dutchy on July 22, 2019, 07:29:42 PM

So what is the trickery supposedly ?

You've been taken in by a meme of three altered images baked inside a loss of objectivity cake that tastes good going down without being able to see the breadth and depth of all the images from all the angles.

Then the mountain top will shapeshift on the offical NASA pictures.
If you claim another angle which i agree the mountaintop on the far right changes dramatically in shape.

Don’t start the namecalling to quick Stash.....

Quote from: Stash on July 22, 2019, 07:39:47 PM

Quote from: dutchy on July 22, 2019, 07:29:42 PM

So what is the trickery supposedly ?

You've been taken in by a meme of three altered images baked inside a loss of objectivity cake that tastes good going down without being able to see the breadth and depth of all the images from all the angles.

Then the mountain top will shapeshift on the offical NASA pictures.
If you claim another angle which i agree the mountaintopn changes dramatically.

I've been looking a bunch of A17 images trying to see what matches what and what doesn't match what. The angles are all over the place so it's hard to cohesively string things together. So I get why people would be like, "Hey, that doesn't really match..." etc. But I'm trying to do the work to see how it all fits together. Personally, I loathe the slapdash meme thing where it seems, in this case, images are manipulated to "make a case". I much prefer the naked truth.

Quote from: dutchy on July 22, 2019, 07:42:54 PM

Quote from: Stash on July 22, 2019, 07:39:47 PM

Quote from: dutchy on July 22, 2019, 07:29:42 PM

So what is the trickery supposedly ?

You've been taken in by a meme of three altered images baked inside a loss of objectivity cake that tastes good going down without being able to see the breadth and depth of all the images from all the angles.

Then the mountain top will shapeshift on the offical NASA pictures.
If you claim another angle which i agree the mountaintopn changes dramatically.

I've been looking a bunch of A17 images trying to see what matches what and what doesn't match what. The angles are all over the place so it's hard to cohesively string things together. So I get why people would be like, "Hey, that doesn't really match..." etc. But I'm trying to do the work to see how it all fits together. Personally, I loathe the slapdash meme thing where it seems, in this case, images are manipulated to "make a case". I much prefer the naked truth.

Envision a proper rotated  LEM from one picture to the other.   How many degrees would that be ?
No way the background could possible match.
We still see the same parts of the LEM in both pictures so our rotation has a certain limitation.. just need to rotate the hypthetical background to match the view.

With any amount of creativity the changing background is utterly impossible.

If so please enlighten me .

Dutchy, the short answer is you've been had by clever conmen.

Their whole argument with the photos rests with the background in both photos being identical, and they clearly are not. They knew it, we know it, and you know it. Stop trying to make a square peg fit in a circle hole.

From my admittedly amateur experiences in photography IMO those differences are just due to camera lens settings.
If you use a wide angle lens you get a completely different picture from one taken with a telephoto lens.
Possibly those pictures were taken with a camera with a " zoom lens ".
You can "zoom in " with the telephoto setting for a close up of a distant mountain or hill for example.
Then you could " zoom out " for a wide angle setting to get a picture of a wider view of the surroundings.
I have taken a lot of pictures at Grand Canyon and have " zoomed in and out" of them when taking pictures from the same location.

If the question is in reference to differences in  the photos I don't see any thing suspicious about them.

All the FE models have some massive issues.

Which is why I don't have a model. People invent a model, or hitch a ride on someone else's model, and when that model doesn't work they either have to admit they're wrong, or paint themselves into a corner trying to defend it. It's really much easier not to have a model. That way there's nothing that needs defending.

This whole moon thing is a great example of this: If your FE model says the moon is, say, one mile across and 20 miles up, then you have to argue the moon landings never happened, when you'd have to have a screw loose to believe that. But there's no reason why a FE would demand the moon to be one mile across and 20 miles high. Or that other thread where some FEers are claiming rockets can't work in space. There's no reason why a FE would mean that rockets couldn't work in space. But they've hitched themselves to a FE model that doesn't work if we sent men to the moon, so they have to claim we didn't, and denying that rockets work in space is just one more rickety leg they've built under their model.

No, it's better not to have a model.

I call on all my fellow flat-Earthers to discard all models. None of them work and none of them is necessary. We can have a flat Earth just because we say so. We're in the minority now, but politics has seen some dramatic reversals and we could be in the majority one day. But all these defective models hurt our cause, because ordinary people can see the flaws in them. It's only by discarding all models that we can unify our movement and spread our message.

Quote from: Stash on July 22, 2019, 07:49:22 PM

Quote from: dutchy on July 22, 2019, 07:42:54 PM

Quote from: Stash on July 22, 2019, 07:39:47 PM

Quote from: dutchy on July 22, 2019, 07:29:42 PM

So what is the trickery supposedly ?

You've been taken in by a meme of three altered images baked inside a loss of objectivity cake that tastes good going down without being able to see the breadth and depth of all the images from all the angles.

Then the mountain top will shapeshift on the offical NASA pictures.
If you claim another angle which i agree the mountaintopn changes dramatically.

I've been looking a bunch of A17 images trying to see what matches what and what doesn't match what. The angles are all over the place so it's hard to cohesively string things together. So I get why people would be like, "Hey, that doesn't really match..." etc. But I'm trying to do the work to see how it all fits together. Personally, I loathe the slapdash meme thing where it seems, in this case, images are manipulated to "make a case". I much prefer the naked truth.

Envision a proper rotated  LEM from one picture to the other.   How many degrees would that be ?
No way the background could possible match.
We still see the same parts of the LEM in both pictures so our rotation has a certain limitation.. just need to rotate the hypthetical background to match the view.

With any amount of creativity the changing background is utterly impossible.

If so please enlighten me .

I get it, there's just lots to consider and I'm not willing to pass judgement on 5 photos, let alone 3 of which that came from a deliberately altered meme. So I'm doing the work. There are lenses to consider for one. I'm a shooter in the biz, production and post, as it were, still and video. No expert on moon imaging, but there is a thing called lens compression that can really alter the foreground v background perspective. I'm not saying this is the case, but worth examining before passing judgement one way or the other. Here's a famous version of the effect:



So let me do the due diligence, objectively, as I have never seen this particular 'discrepancy' before and it's worth a look.

Quote from: JackBlack on July 22, 2019, 04:07:51 PM

All the FE models have some massive issues.

Which is why I don't have a model. People invent a model, or hitch a ride on someone else's model, and when that model doesn't work they either have to admit they're wrong, or paint themselves into a corner trying to defend it. It's really much easier not to have a model. That way there's nothing that needs defending.

This whole moon thing is a great example of this: If your FE model says the moon is, say, one mile across and 20 miles up, then you have to argue the moon landings never happened, when you'd have to have a screw loose to believe that. But there's no reason why a FE would demand the moon to be one mile across and 20 miles high. Or that other thread where some FEers are claiming rockets can't work in space. There's no reason why a FE would mean that rockets couldn't work in space. But they've hitched themselves to a FE model that doesn't work if we sent men to the moon, so they have to claim we didn't, and denying that rockets work in space is just one more rickety leg they've built under their model.

No, it's better not to have a model.

I call on all my fellow flat-Earthers to discard all models. None of them work and none of them is necessary. We can have a flat Earth just because we say so. We're in the minority now, but politics has seen some dramatic reversals and we could be in the majority one day. But all these defective models hurt our cause, because ordinary people can see the flaws in them. It's only by discarding all models that we can unify our movement and spread our message.

I agree,  let's discard objective reality,  then we can make the world into whatever we like.   LOL.    I wonder if there is any downside?

Quote from: Stash on July 22, 2019, 07:49:22 PM

Quote from: dutchy on July 22, 2019, 07:42:54 PM

Quote from: Stash on July 22, 2019, 07:39:47 PM

Quote from: dutchy on July 22, 2019, 07:29:42 PM

So what is the trickery supposedly ?

You've been taken in by a meme of three altered images baked inside a loss of objectivity cake that tastes good going down without being able to see the breadth and depth of all the images from all the angles.

Then the mountain top will shapeshift on the offical NASA pictures.
If you claim another angle which i agree the mountaintopn changes dramatically.

I've been looking a bunch of A17 images trying to see what matches what and what doesn't match what. The angles are all over the place so it's hard to cohesively string things together. So I get why people would be like, "Hey, that doesn't really match..." etc. But I'm trying to do the work to see how it all fits together. Personally, I loathe the slapdash meme thing where it seems, in this case, images are manipulated to "make a case". I much prefer the naked truth.

Envision a proper rotated  LEM from one picture to the other.   How many degrees would that be ?
No way the background could possible match.
We still see the same parts of the LEM in both pictures so our rotation has a certain limitation.. just need to rotate the hypthetical background to match the view.

With any amount of creativity the changing background is utterly impossible.

If so please enlighten me .

First image is taken from higher elevation than second, pointing slightly down at the LM.

The LM is in a bit of dip.  As is position of second photo.

Bottom of mountain is cut off on second image by the terrain, the line of which you can see on the high res photo (no, it’s not where the painting/projection starts).

The angle has changed obviously, putting the LM to left of mountain in second shot, accounting for its apparent rotation, and slight change in view of top of mountain.

At a guess, I’d place second picture taken from about halfway down white line on right hand side of first picture.

Come on guys, we talk about things being obscured by the horizon all the damn time.  How has no one thought of this yet?

Unconvinced, you've nailed it.

I was also going to propose the 2nd photo was taken from a higher elevation, LM possibly being in a dip, different angle, accounting for differences with LM positioning in photo, etc.

It's common sense.

Magellanclavicord, I say the world is made of chocolate, and so it is so! Presto! Everywhere I go, I break off pieces of delicious chocolate and eat it, drink it, sniff it, wash myself in it, and inject it. That's the thing though, the chocolate isn't brown, but it's still chocolate. Maybe I should start the chocolate earth society, ey magellanclavicord? You can bring your rainbows and lollipops.

So what is the trickery supposedly ?

That is quite simple:
You are claiming the mountain is magically shrinking, and using a photo with a different scale to pretend it has shrunk.

You have no actual basis for your claim that the closer shot has a smaller mountain.

Previously you claimed they were exactly the same, that it was just a backdrop, but that was shown to be wrong as well as they are similar, but not identical.

Even when you claim the angle of the LEM is different than another problem occurs. The mountain top is different !

That isn't a problem.
As it is viewed from a different angle you would expect the mountain to appear different.

Envision a proper rotated  LEM from one picture to the other.   How many degrees would that be ?

Quite a few.
I would estimate just below 90 degrees.
But that is the LM not the mountain. For the mountain it will be much less.

No way the background could possible match.

Good thing they don't match.
They are close, but not a match.
There is nothing impossible about this. If you think there is please enlighten us all as to just what this problem is.
Don't be vague, be very specific.

Which is why I don't have a model.

Yes, I know. You don't want to have a model because people can then use that to show your model is wrong.
You hope that without a model you can pretend Earth is flat.
But again, I don't need you to have a model to show it is wrong.
The moon alone is proof (enough to convince any sane person) that Earth is round.

It's really much easier not to have a model. That way there's nothing that needs defending.

Not having a model is not enough.
If you make a claim, like claiming Earth is flat, then that needs defending.
Even without having a model, it needs defending.
While not having a model allows some obfuscation as a form of defence, in general it makes the defence harder as you are claiming something with literally nothing to back it up.

If you don't want have anything to defend the solution is quite simple: Don't make any claims, don't even have opinions. State you have no idea on what the shape of Earth is.
Then you have nothing to defend as you aren't presenting an opinion.

But there's no reason why a FE would demand the moon to be one mile across and 20 miles high.

While the exact numbers are wrong there is a reason.
While the moon is above the equator, if you view it from 45 degrees north (i.e. 5000 km) of where it is directly above, it appears at an angle of 45 degrees.
This allows you to determine that the moon is at a height of 5000 km above the equator.
When observing it from the equator it is observed to be roughly 0.5 degrees across, which for the distance of 5000 km results in a width of roughly 50 km.
The key part of this which necessitates that the moon is close and small is that different locations on the FE see the moon in different directions.
If Earth is flat, this only makes sense with a small close moon.
But this has the problem of the moon should look different from different locations, and change size.
The fact that it looks the same regardless of where you are on Earth and remains roughly the same size demands a distant large moon.

Assuming a FE has lead to a direct contradiction without assuming any particular model.

The only sane option which can explain it is having a distant, large moon to produce the same view regardless of where you are, with the change in apparent direction being due to the surface of Earth being at a different angle, i.e. Earth not being flat.

So even without a model, you still have massive problems you need to defend against if you want to claim Earth is flat.

We can have a flat Earth just because we say so.

You mean you can recognise that FE does not match reality but reject reality anyway.

This is not politics. The shape of Earth is not decided by popular vote.
Even if you were in the majority Earth would still be round.

If you want to discard the flaws then discard the idea of Earth being flat as it simply doesn't match reality and needs plenty of magic/massive conspiracies to prop it up.

If I say I believe the earth is flat because that's what the bible says according to my interpretation,  that would be a valid worldview as any other, but then I can't say that I believe in science. That would be like saying that the earth is flat and round at the same time. It's a contradiction.

"Not everyone around the world is prepared to take the word of the United States on faith."
-Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien in a speech to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, February 13, 2003

This is an image of a Reaction Control System thruster firing on the space shuttle, taken from Joseph P. Allen's book Entering Space :


Another image from Allen's book also shows flame and visible exhaust from the Orbital Maneuvering Subsystem :


Orange-coloured exhaust, from a single 26400 N (6000 lb) OMS firing, is caused by the oxidizer, nitrogen tetroxide :


However, images and video of the lunar ascent and descent modules (LM), allegedly taken from the surface of the moon and from the Apollo Command/Service Module (C/SM), do not show flame or exhaust.

For the Apollo lunar ascent and descent module single main engine and sixteen attitude control thrusters, the fuel and oxidizer were, respectively, hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide.  The space shuttle orbiter also uses hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide in its Orbital Maneuvering Subsystem and Reaction Control System.

In Entering Space, Allen describes the shuttle thrusters: "The forward primary thrusters sound like exploding cannons at thrust onset; and during their firing, jets of flame shoot out from the orbiter's nose. ...The orbiter reacts to the primaries' shove by shaking slightly and moving very noticeably. For the crew on board, a series of attitude changes using primaries resembles a World War I sea battle, with cannons and mortars firing, flashes of flame shooting in all directions, and the ship's shuddering and shaking in reaction to the salvos."

Images from a surface camera pan the lunar ascent module as it lifts off the surface. The background is a pitch black sky.

In this image showing the Apollo 17 lunar ascent module "Challenger" supposedly lifting off from the Taurus-Littrow landing site there is no flame, exhaust, or even engine exhaust shroud visible from the bottom of the lunar ascent module.

The lunar ascent module engine had a 15000 N (3500 lb) thrust.  The attitude control thrusters for the Apollo C/SM and LM (which had four sets of quadruple thrusters) had 490 N (110 lb) of thrust each. In comparison, the 38 thrusters for shuttle orbit control each have a nominal thrust of 3870 N (880 lb), with a range from 3114 N to 5338 N.  Why is the exhaust visible from the 3870 N shuttle thruster but not from the 15000 N lunar ascent module engine?

It's impossible to find any images or video footage of any visible flame or exhaust coming from any of the four quadruple clusters used for attitude control of the lunar module, or from the main engines of the ascent and descent modules.  However, official NASA artists' drawings do show a considerable amount of flame and exhaust emanating from the main engine :




In the films To The Edge And Back covering Apollo 13 and Apollo 13, animation shows the LM main engine emitting a bright flame for the various burns between the earth and the moon.  In Apollo 13, animation shows visible flame from the LM thrusters during SM separation from the CM and LM.

In the 30-minute documentary Houston, We've Got A Problem covering Apollo 13, an image of the service module shows the panel blown off :


The SM is bright and takes up a good portion of the screen. On the remainder of the screen stars appear to be indistiguishable from debris. Photographs taken from the surface of the moon do not show stars in the sky.

In For All Mankind by the National Geographic Society, astronauts are shown suiting up. In their launch suits, the astronauts do arm exercises and wave to the crowd.  From these scenes the Apollo suits do not appear to have bearings at the joints like the space shuttle extra vehicular suits, which do have bearings at the elbow, shoulder, wrist, hip, knee, and ankle joints.  How were the Apollo astronauts able to bend their joints, especially their finger joints, on the moon if their suits were pressurized?



Pressurized suits give a rigid balloon-like appearance which the moon astronauts did not appear to have

The For All Mankind video shows the ground when the lunar module is landing.  As dust is being kicked up from the main engine, a dark shadow of the module appears.  The ground in the lunar module shadow does not show any reflection or brightness from any main engine exhaust flame.

Why were there were no emergencies or problems from the temperature extremes of -100 to -150 degrees Fahrenheit to +215F?  A study paper for a proposed moonbase uses a noon-time worst case of 375 K (102 C, or 215 F) for a lunar surface temperature.

In For All Mankind, ground control announced that the temperature in the shade was -100 to -150 degrees Fahrenheit.  Were the batteries of the lunar rover in the shade, and if so, how were they protected against these temperature extremes?

At temperatures less than -40F (-40C) a lot of materials start becoming very brittle. Electrical items do not work as well.  Batteries produce less current.  The extreme temperature variations from shadow to sunlight would cause significant material contraction and expansion and would make equipment breakdown and failure very likely.

Why did the one-sixth gravity cause the astronauts to alternate between hopping and walking?  We all saw many sequences where an astronauts looked like they were flexing their knees pretty good to jump but they did not travel any higher than 40 cm. Why? The astronauts were not hopping any farther than what the typical person could hop here on Earth.

There a number of times in Apollo footage when the astronauts were landing pretty hard on their knees.  Were they not running a huge risk of puncturing their pressurized suits? According to an article in the Dec. 1, 1969 issue of Aviation Week and Space Technology, Apollo mission planners were worried about suit puncture and cutting.

After an Apollo 14 astronaut sets up and lets go of the flag, the flag flutters, is still, and then flutters again.  This may be viewed on the Apollo Interactive CD-ROM by Simitar Entertainment.

How about the stability of the lunar module in flight. Only a single engine is provided, for both the ascent and descent phases, right in the centre with the potential for a rapidly shifting centre of gravity to be off considerably from the thrust vector due to the design.  Shifting centre of gravity due to fuel consumption and astronaut movement, and eccentric loading due to weight of rover or moon rocks, would result in an unstable and unbalanced craft.  The ascent and descent modules have a significantly different centre of gravity yet they both use the same four sets of quadruple thrusters, giving different flight characteristics and handling.  How can the quadruple thrusters fire quickly enough and sufficiently enough to counteract a quickly changing and significantly changing thrust vector?  How can the system remain stable and not loop uncontrollably?  The ascent stage engine was not gimballed, and the inherently off-center, large torquing thrust would have to have been constantly and very immediately counteracted by the small, low-thrust, quadruple thrusters.  The craft has good potential to fly like a balloon you let go of and let deflate.  I am currently attempting to obtain actual engineering drawings to perform detailed calculations.

Set of excerpts of "docking" : You must be a genuine idiot so to be unable to recognize obvious fakery in this cheap animation : once again : 100% proof moon landing Hoax in a 1 minute clip :

Quote from: cikljamas on July 22, 2019, 06:53:05 AM

0b. The airlocks between the lunar rover and the outside, none. NONE!!! Fantasy the lot.

Why should there be any "airlocks between the lunar rover and the outside"?
The lunar rover is only driven by astronauts wearing spacesuits (Extravehicular Mobility Units) so why would airlocks be needed?

When entering the LM from the CM the airlock is part of the CM (one hatch on the CM and one on the LM).
On the surface, the LM was depressurised before exit and repressurised after re-entry.
The LM atmosphere was pure oxygen atmosphere at only 5 psi, about one-third the pressure of the air.

So you, cikljamas, might not be able to understand these simple issues but that in no way proves it is "Fantasy the lot" it just proves that you are too lazy to investigate and understand it!

Well, it is indeed Fantasy the lot :

According to the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/, for Apollo 12, values given for cabin pressure are 4.8 psi, and for normal operating suit pressure, 3.8 psi. This suggests a pure oxygen environment for the Lunar Module.

For Apollo 11, 12, & 14, during EVA preparation, the suit relative pressures were 4.6 to 5.2 psi when the LM cabin pressure was 3.5 psi, giving suit absolute pressures of 8.1 to 8.7 psi pure oxygen.  At earth's atmospheric pressure of 14.7 psi, this correlates to 55% to 60% oxygen content, which gives an oxygen partial pressure of 8.1 to 8.7 psi.

According to the Apollo 12 ALSJ, the suits were already difficult to bend at 3.8 psi relative pressure (when the LM cabin pressure was 3.5 psi).  When the suit pressures were at about 4.5 psi relative pressure, the suits were very stiff.

The following quotes are from a March 11, 1968 Aviation Week & Space Technology article headlined "Flammability Tests Spur Two-Gas Apollo".

"Washington - Decision to use a two-gas atmosphere (60% oxygen, 40% nitrogen) during manned Apollo on-the-pad preparations and in pre-orbital flight reflects a basic inability to make the spacecraft flameproof after 14 months of redesign that cost more than $100 million and added about 2,000 lb. to the system.

"The decision (AW&ST, Mar. 4, p. 21) was forced on the National Aeronautics and Space Administration after three series of flammability tests on an Apollo command module boilerplate failed to satisfy officials that changes would prevent the spread of fire under a pure-oxygen environment."

The article goes on to mention how a 95% oxygen system at 6.2 psi which would be orbital configuration developed problems in fire propagation tests.

Would not there have been serious flammability problems of such an environment in the lunar module? The article concludes:

"By switching to a two-gas system for pre-flight and immediate post-launch activities, NASA is willing to accept an added problem. Astronauts will be breathing pure oxygen during that phase and they will have to vent the spacecraft cabin during boost to orbit and repressurize to 6 psi with oxygen to permit them to remove their helmets and work in relative comfort.

"Possibility of the 40% of nitrogen causing bends if an emergency escape has to be made during the launch phase was considered by officials less hazardous than that of fire propagation in a one-gas system."

A Feb. 6, 1967 article in AW&ST indicates that when the Apollo program was being planned, the primary reason for choosing a 5-psi cabin oxygen system was weight considerations. Added weight (with a two-gas system) would come from a mixture control system to keep the proper gas ratio. Also, introduction of an oxygen-nitrogen or oxygen-helium environmental control system for Apollo would have meant the addition of an airlock.

Just how dangerous was a pure oxygen environment in the ascent and descent lunar module considered to be?

Here on earth, increasing the percentage of oxygen to slightly above 21% dramatically increases probability of fires. According to The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (p. 567) by Barrow and Tipler, "...the probability of a forest fire being started by a lightning-bolt increases 70% for every 1% rise in oxygen concentration above the present 21%. Above 25% very little of the vegetation on land would survive the fires...". "At the present fraction of 21%, fires will not start at more than 15% moisture content. Were the oxygen content to reach 25%, even damp twigs and the grass of a rain forest would ignite."(p. 568).

Ralph René, in his book NASA Mooned America, provides a list of government-sponsored testing that resulted in oxygen fires. René extracted this information from Appendix G in Mission To The Moon by Kennan & Harvey. Here are some tests on that list:

"September 9, 1962 - The first known fire occurred in the Space Cabin Simulator at Brooks Air Force Base in a chamber using 100% oxygen at 5 psi. It was explosive and involved the carbon dioxide scrubber. Both occupants collapsed from smoke inhalation before being rescued."

"November 17, 1962 - Another incident using 100% oxygen at 5 psi in a chamber at the Navy Laboratory (ACEL). There were four occupants in the chamber, but the simple replacing of a burned-out light bulb caused their clothes to catch on fire. They escaped in 40 seconds but all suffered burns. Two were seriously injured. In addition an asbestos 'safety' blanket caught fire and burned causing one man's hand to catch fire."

"April 28, 1966 - More Apollo equipment was destroyed as it was being tested under 100% oxygen and 5 psi at the Apollo Environmental Control System in Torrance, CA."

"January 1, 1967 - The last known test was over three weeks before Grissom, Chaffee & White suffered immolation. Two men were handling 16 rabbits in a chamber of 100% oxygen at 7.2 psi at Brooks Air Force Base and all living things died in the inferno. The cause may have been as simple as a static discharge from a rabbit's fur ... but we'll never know."

NASA subjected Grissom, White and Chaffee to over 90% pure oxygen at over 16 psi in a test with live electrical circuits and switches being thrown, and with a hatch that took more than three minutes to open, resulting in the fatal Apollo 1 fire.

Bill Kaysing, in his book We Never Went To The Moon, states, in Chapter 9 titled "Murder By Negligence On Pad 34", "If any two documents lend credibility to the contention that the Apollo flights were faked, they are most certainly the Baron Report and the Phillips Report. They were authored by two men of obvious integrity and dedication. Although from diverse backgrounds, both Tom Baron and Sam Phillips were in total agreement on one basic premise, i.e., that North American Aviation and its sponsor, NASA, were totally unequal to the task of assuring even one successful flight to the moon!"

Now care to answer the very simple question yet?

What force acts on the gas to make it move in a particular direction when exiting the rocket and what body is providing this force?
Again, the only rational answer is that the rocket is providing a force to the gas to move it backwards due to the way it is partially contained.
That means rockets would work in a vacuum.

You still haven't watched this video :



No, the “second body” isnt the gases...in a rocket launch...the rocket (engine) is the “first body” applying force (expelled gases) to a second body (ground, then atmosphere).. which “pushes back” with equal and opposite force.. on the first body (rocket) forcing it to go up..
what happens in a REAL and INFINITE vacuum, where there is no “second body” to act upon???

THE ROCKET (ENGINE) = FIRST BODY
FORCE = EXPELLED GASSES
GROUND/ATMOSPHERE = SECOND BODY

In the context of a bowling ball experiment :

The guy on a skateboard = FIRST BODY
FORCE = Motion of his arms that pushes off a heavy ball
A MEDICINE BALL = SECOND BODY

Heaviness of a medicine ball (INERTIA) enables our guy to be pushed off of a heavy ball.
Heaviness of a medicine ball (INERTIA) imitates/simulates THE AIR
Lightness of some light object (which our guy could have used in his second hypothetical try) imitates/simulates A VACUUM

Get it???

Or do i have to copy/paste this portion of my previous post (again), as well :


There is no denying that If you stand on a skate board and throw the bowling ball away, you and the skateboard will indeed move in the opposite direction to the bowling ball. This is because, by throwing the bowling ball away, you have basically pushed against a resistant object that is separate from you, (like a solid wall).

So, INERTIA (of the bowling ball) is the magic word (an explanation) that you are looking for (which is behind this fraudulent NASA's "scientific" method.

Do i have to remind you to one other equally fraudulent NASA's "scientific" method that should have looked authentic (dropping a ball in a moving train/airplane)

I destroyed (for good) this other (dropping a ball within enclosed moving object) NASA's fraudulent method by offering my own irrefutable counter-argument ("CONCORDE" thought experiment).

HERE IT IS : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78814.msg2128697#msg2128697

Now, back on the track :

Pay attention to this very important (exposing) aspect of NASA's fraudulent method (bowling ball) :
In which exact moment does our guy (on the skateboard) starts to move back (in the video posted by sokarul)



BOWLING BALL SLOW MOTION REVEALS NASA'S SCAM :


Long before he extends his arms to the full extent and even much long before he throws the ball (before the ball is fully detached from his hands).
It means that in our "balloon exhausting" kind of experiments we should expect the same result : our toy cars should start being propelled (pushed back) even before the air is exhausted out of the nozzle (drinking straw) into the surrounding environment!!!
That is to say, if we could make the ball to disappear (to vanish into thin air) in the exact same moment when our skateboard guy extends his hands to the full extent (few milliseconds before he throws the ball), he would be still pushed back to the same degree as it is shown in sokarul's video.
Now, all you have to do is to apply this same logic to our "balloon exhausting" experiments and explain to us, why this fraudulent NASA's method doesn't work the same way in both cases???

ACCOMPANYING VIDEO :
ROCKETS CAN'T FLY IN A VACUUM - 3 :

So....what mechanism allows a force to be transferred to the rocket from an exhaust molecule hitting an air molecule?

So....what mechanism allows a force to be transferred to the rocket from an exhaust molecule hitting an air molecule?

Resistance!

If I say I believe the earth is flat because that's what the bible says according to my interpretation,  that would be a valid worldview as any other, but then I can't say that I believe in science. That would be like saying that the earth is flat and round at the same time. It's a contradiction.

I have guaranteed you that science definitely isn't telling the earth's being round. people who claim to represent science today do not represent science in any way, nor do they use scientific methodology. only flat earthers are doing it.

However, images and video of the lunar ascent and descent modules (LM), allegedly taken from the surface of the moon and from the Apollo Command/Service Module (C/SM), do not show flame or exhaust.

I take it this means you now fully accept that rockets do in fact work in space and that your prior objects were nothing more than nonsense.

There are 3 main reasons I can think of.
One is a significantly different fuel/oxidiser.
While both use N2O4, from what I can find the Space shuttle uses monomethyl hydrazine, not hydrazine like you claim, while the assent module used a mix of dimethyl hyrazine and hydrazine, not just hydrazine like you say.

But then again, it isn't actually you saying this. It is just you copying and pasting crap from elsewhere.
Why not just link to it rather than spamming here?
http://ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo1.htm

It's also not a very good argument is it?
"NASA must have faked Apollo because these real shuttle things show it should have been different.""
And:
"NASA must have faked Apollo because these clearly fake cartoons show it differently".

Not a very good argument is it?

The other option is that the much brighter surface of the moon hid the flames as they weren't bright enough.

But the far more rational option is that you are just pulling the same dishonest crap as always.
You are being highly selective with what images you use.

If only there was a video that could be used instead.
Oh wait, there is:


Notice this wonderful part:

Wow, you can clearly see the orange flame at the base of the module.

Then the debris comes flying out:



Your next post seems to have a lot of quotes, but no actual arguments.

You still haven't watched this video :

Unless you are showing a rocket not working in space, the video is irrelevant.
From the thumbnail it looks like a prop driven craft, so completely irrelevant.

If you think there is a valid argument, provide it in text here.

No, the “second body” isnt the gases

Do the gasses remain with the rocket?
NO!
As such, they are a second body.
You not liking that wont change that fact.

Again, saying the gas is not a second body is like saying the baseball is not the second body and that the pitcher should feel it when the batter hits the ball.
It is pure nonsense.

Or do i have to copy/paste this portion of my previous post (again), as well :

Copying and pasting the same refuted garbage wont help you.

As much as you hate it, the gas is the second body.
The rocket forces the gas backwards and the gas forces the rocket forwards.

The inertia of the gas is the only "resistance" required for the rocket to move.

To claim otherwise you need to claim that the gas remains a part of the rocket, and thus remains with it, rather than leaving it.

That would require you to claim that if you have a gas in a pressurised container and have an opening in that container, the gas will magically remain inside.
It is pure nonsense.

Now how about you answer the question:
What force acts on the gas to make it move in a particular direction when exiting the rocket and what body is providing this force?
Again, the only rational answer is that the rocket is providing a force to the gas to move it backwards due to the way it is partially contained.
That means rockets would work in a vacuum.

You are claiming the mountain is magically shrinking, and using a photo with a different scale to pretend it has shrunk.

He isn't telling this. Stop to use your imagination as an example to represent thoughts of others. You are not a witch.

You have no actual basis for your claim that the closer shot has a smaller mountain.

There is. Your denying simple phsics does not magically events how you want they to be. You deny it because it contradicts to your predicted arguments have produced in a cave.

That isn't a problem.

It is a great problem. Your closing your eyes or digging your head to sand does not magically make it not exist.

As it is viewed from a different angle you would expect the mountain to appear different.

It seems same. Your thoughts for only object for honor of objection.

Quote from: kopfverderber on July 23, 2019, 02:25:13 AM

If I say I believe the earth is flat because that's what the bible says according to my interpretation,  that would be a valid worldview as any other, but then I can't say that I believe in science. That would be like saying that the earth is flat and round at the same time. It's a contradiction.

I have guaranteed you that science definitely isn't telling the earth's being round. people who claim to represent science today do not represent science in any way, nor do they use scientific methodology. only flat earthers are doing it.

Read the pinned comment (pay attention to the passage FLAT EARTH HOAX - links listed from A to Z) below this video :

You don't want to have a model because people can then use that to show your model is wrong.

Nope. The wrong model is globularist model and you have feel honored to use that wrong model while you know its being wrong. So your thesis is debunked.

The moon alone is proof (enough to convince any sane person) that Earth is round.

The moon and the earth are quite different things. Your example like comparison the table is rectangle so the earth has to be rectangle. Do everything has a hole has to be blackhole?

If you make a claim, like claiming Earth is flat, then that needs defending.

And we are defending it well. Your baseless claims do not change that fact.

Even without having a model, it needs defending.

There is a well known model, flat earth model. Your baselessly denying it does not magically make it disappear.

Quote from: wise on July 23, 2019, 04:03:00 AM

Quote from: kopfverderber on July 23, 2019, 02:25:13 AM

If I say I believe the earth is flat because that's what the bible says according to my interpretation,  that would be a valid worldview as any other, but then I can't say that I believe in science. That would be like saying that the earth is flat and round at the same time. It's a contradiction.

I have guaranteed you that science definitely isn't telling the earth's being round. people who claim to represent science today do not represent science in any way, nor do they use scientific methodology. only flat earthers are doing it.

Read the pinned comment (pay attention to the passage FLAT EARTH HOAX - links listed from A to Z) below this video :

Okay I have read now. I agree them. I am lucky you don't count me. 

Quote from: sokarul on July 23, 2019, 03:54:49 AM

So....what mechanism allows a force to be transferred to the rocket from an exhaust molecule hitting an air molecule?

Resistance!

Ever heard of

• "A body at rest will remain at rest, and a body in motion will remain in motion unless it is acted upon by an external force."
• force = mass x acceleration or the more general case where mass might vary force = rate of change of momentum and
• "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

There's no mention if "Resistance" anywhere.