Artemis Project

If the Artemis Project achieves its goal of placing a crew on the moon in the next 5 years or so, how is the FES going to view it?   Are they going to simply brush it off as yet another fake conspiracy? 

If the Artemis Project achieves its goal of placing a crew on the moon in the next 5 years or so, how is the FES going to view it?   Are they going to simply brush it off as yet another fake conspiracy?

My guess is that they'll treat any future moon landing the same way they treated the original moon landing 50 years ago and every other space mission before and since.

Quote from: Tommyocean on July 25, 2019, 08:56:23 AM

If the Artemis Project achieves its goal of placing a crew on the moon in the next 5 years or so, how is the FES going to view it?   Are they going to simply brush it off as yet another fake conspiracy?

My guess is that they'll treat any future moon landing the same way they treated the original moon landing 50 years ago and every other space mission before and since.

I fully expect some people to not only declare it fake, but still complain we never went back.

Quote from: markjo on July 25, 2019, 09:08:56 AM

Quote from: Tommyocean on July 25, 2019, 08:56:23 AM

If the Artemis Project achieves its goal of placing a crew on the moon in the next 5 years or so, how is the FES going to view it?   Are they going to simply brush it off as yet another fake conspiracy?

My guess is that they'll treat any future moon landing the same way they treated the original moon landing 50 years ago and every other space mission before and since.

I fully expect some people to not only declare it fake, but still complain we never went back.

How can they complain that we never went back when they also claim that we never went there in the first place?

Quote from: Unconvinced on July 25, 2019, 10:22:24 AM

Quote from: markjo on July 25, 2019, 09:08:56 AM

Quote from: Tommyocean on July 25, 2019, 08:56:23 AM

If the Artemis Project achieves its goal of placing a crew on the moon in the next 5 years or so, how is the FES going to view it?   Are they going to simply brush it off as yet another fake conspiracy?

My guess is that they'll treat any future moon landing the same way they treated the original moon landing 50 years ago and every other space mission before and since.

I fully expect some people to not only declare it fake, but still complain we never went back.

How can they complain that we never went back when they also claim that we never went there in the first place?

You doubt the ability of Moon Hoaxers and Flat Earthers to hold mutually exclusive beliefs at the same time?

The “why didn’t we go back?” argument is firmly established.  I don’t think it will be undone by a trifling detail like actually going back.

We may find out in the near future though.  Watch this space.

NASA mainly fakes major missions when they have to, which is why they suddenly advanced in technological progress and claimed to put Explorer 1 up within three months of Sputnick. The Moon mission had a countdown timer too, JFK gave it until the end of the decade and Congress was breathing down their neck. Congress also wanted a permenant space station with reusable vehicles and it took decades of threats to get that.

If it can be pushed back, it will. If they are threatened by a president or Congress in some serious capacity they will fake it.

NASA mainly fakes major missions when they have to, which is why they suddenly advanced in technological progress and claimed to put Explorer 1 up within three months of Sputnick. The Moon mission had a countdown timer too, JFK gave it until the end of the decade and Congress was breathing down their neck. Congress also wanted a permenant space station with reusable vehicles and it took decades of threats to get that.

If it can be pushed back, it will. If they are threatened by a president or Congress in some serious capacity they will fake it.

So what about all the smaller missions?

NASA mainly fakes major missions when they have to, which is why they suddenly advanced in technological progress and claimed to put Explorer 1 up within three months of Sputnick. The Moon mission had a countdown timer too, JFK gave it until the end of the decade and Congress was breathing down their neck. Congress also wanted a permenant space station with reusable vehicles and it took decades of threats to get that.

If it can be pushed back, it will. If they are threatened by a president or Congress in some serious capacity they will fake it.

I see activity on the other flat earth forum flat lining, with barely a pulse, Tom. Hence, here you are, jumping ship to share your wisdom.....

Unfortunately, people work better with deadlines. Time restraints are necessary. They advanced in technological progress, not due to fakery, but due to hiring the smartest people around, and employing hundreds of thousands of people to experiment and make the work happen.

There is zero proof any moon landing evidence was hoaxed and simply tonnes of evidence the moon landings did happen. They didn't fake it in 1969, and there is no reason to think they will fake anything now.

It's a shame reality is too boring for you to handle, Tom, and too scary for you to accommodate into your worldview.

 

Dude, Tom has been a member of this forum for more than 10 years.

Oh it took a deadline, competition, and pressure to get something done?
Gee
That never happens anywhere or anyone else.

https://time.com/5322514/stop-procrastinating-tips/

Dude, Tom has been a member of this forum for more than 10 years.

No s#!t Sherlock. But Tom hasn't blown through here for months, and clearly prefers the uptight nature of the other pale imitation forum.

Procrastinators tend to get their asses kicked or fired.

Oh it took a deadline, competition, and pressure to get something done?
Gee
That never happens anywhere or anyone else.

https://time.com/5322514/stop-procrastinating-tips/

This is a response to tomB scoffing at the nasa enginerrs requiring congress to get things done.
Not to tomB and his 10yr tfes tenture.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on July 25, 2019, 04:49:18 PM

Dude, Tom has been a member of this forum for more than 10 years.

No s#!t Sherlock. But Tom hasn't blown through here for months, and clearly prefers the uptight nature of the other pale imitation forum.

Procrastinators tend to get their asses kicked or fired.

You're not even making sense.

Dude, Tom has been a member of this forum for more than 10 years.

And he still thinks that NASA launched the Saturn V straight up towards the moon, even though he's been told otherwise numerous times.

What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter straight up at 7 miles per second...

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on July 25, 2019, 04:49:18 PM

Dude, Tom has been a member of this forum for more than 10 years.

And he still thinks that NASA launched the Saturn V straight up towards the moon, even though he's been told otherwise numerous times.

Quote from: https://wiki.tfes.org/Occam's_Razor

What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter straight up at 7 miles per second...

I understand it just fine. You need to achieve 7 miles per second to achieve escape velocity. The escape velocity is a function of distance from the center of the Earth. It doesn't matter if there are other movements involved.

https://www.theifod.com/escape-velocity/

"To escape Earth’s gravity, an object needs to be traveling about 11.2 km/s (about 7 miles per second or 25,000 miles per hour). Escape velocity is constant for anywhere on the earth’s surface at average planet radius as escape velocity only depends on the mass of earth and the distance the escaping object is from the center of the Earth as escape velocity is inversely proportional to the square root of the distance from the center of earth."



In RET 'up' is away from the center of the earth and 'down' is towards it. Up and down are not universal directions in your model. Regardless of actual paths taken, the statement is most certainly correct in regards to what needs to occur.

For markjo:

Helping Your Child With Maps & Globes

Quote from: markjo on July 25, 2019, 06:26:10 PM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on July 25, 2019, 04:49:18 PM

Dude, Tom has been a member of this forum for more than 10 years.

And he still thinks that NASA launched the Saturn V straight up towards the moon, even though he's been told otherwise numerous times.

Quote from: https://wiki.tfes.org/Occam's_Razor

What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter straight up at 7 miles per second...

I understand it just fine. You need to achieve 7 miles per second to achieve escape velocity. The escape velocity is a function of distance from the center of the Earth. It doesn't matter if there are other movements involved.

Obviously you don't because NASA, and every other space launch agency, launches for earth orbit at a about 5 miles per second before going to the 7 mile per second escape velocity. 

In RET 'up' is away from the center of the earth and 'down' is towards it. Up and down are not universal directions in your model. Regardless of actual paths taken, the statement is most certainly correct in regards to what needs to occur.

I agree with the speed required, but in not the direction that you claim.  Again, NASA goes for earth orbit first, which is more or less horizontal (parallel or concentric to the surface of the round earth).  After earth orbit, they generally transfer to a parabolic or hyperbolic trajectory, which is still not anywhere close to "straight up" relative to the earth.

In short, "7 miles per second away from the earth" is not necessarily the same as "7 miles per second straight up".

NASA mainly fakes major missions when they have to,

And you have real evidence for thst, I assume?

which is why they suddenly advanced in technological progress and claimed to put Explorer 1 up within three months of Sputnick.

And why is that surprising? The US was not starting from scratch when the USSR launched Sputnik I!
They have already planned to launch a satellite in 1957 but their efforts were fragmented.
The launching of Sputnik I put a rocket under them, as it were, and NASA was formed from the NACA to coordinate the work.

Sputnik and The Dawn of the Space Age
 The story begins in 1952, when the International Council of Scientific Unions decided to establish July 1, 1957, to December 31, 1958, as theInternational Geophysical Year (IGY) because the scientists knew that the cycles of solar activity would be at a high point then. In October 1954, the council adopted a resolution calling for artificial satellites to be launched during the IGY to map the Earth's surface. 

In July 1955, the White House announced plans to launch an Earth-orbiting satellite for the IGY and solicited proposals from various Government research agencies to undertake development. In September 1955, the Naval Research Laboratory's Vanguard proposal was chosen to represent the U.S. during the IGY. 

The Sputnik launch changed everything. As a technical achievement, Sputnik caught the world's attention and the American public off-guard. Its size was more impressive than Vanguard's intended 3.5-pound payload. In addition, the public feared that the Soviets' ability to launch satellites also translated into the capability to launch ballistic missiles that could carry nuclear weapons from Europe to the U.S. Then the Soviets struck again; on November 3, Sputnik II was launched, carrying a much heavier payload, including a dog named Laika. 

Immediately after the Sputnik I launch in October, the U.S. Defense Department responded to the political furor by approving funding for another U.S. satellite project. As a simultaneous alternative to Vanguard, Wernher von Braun and his Army Redstone Arsenal team began work on the Explorer project. 

On January 31, 1958, the tide changed, when the United States successfully launched Explorer I. This satellite carried a small scientific payload that eventually discovered the magnetic radiation belts around the Earth, named after principal investigator James Van Allen. The Explorer program continued as a successful ongoing series of lightweight, scientifically useful spacecraft.

 The Sputnik launch also led directly to the creation of National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). In July 1958, Congress passed the National Aeronautics and Space Act (commonly called the "Space Act"), which created NASA as of October 1, 1958 from the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) and other government agencies. 

The Moon mission had a countdown timer too, JFK gave it until the end of the decade and Congress was breathing down their neck. Congress also wanted a permenant space station with reusable vehicles and it took decades of threats to get that.

If it can be pushed back, it will. If they are threatened by a president or Congress in some serious capacity they will fake it.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 25, 2019, 07:07:54 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 25, 2019, 06:26:10 PM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on July 25, 2019, 04:49:18 PM

Dude, Tom has been a member of this forum for more than 10 years.

And he still thinks that NASA launched the Saturn V straight up towards the moon, even though he's been told otherwise numerous times.

Quote from: https://wiki.tfes.org/Occam's_Razor

What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter straight up at 7 miles per second...

I understand it just fine. You need to achieve 7 miles per second to achieve escape velocity. The escape velocity is a function of distance from the center of the Earth. It doesn't matter if there are other movements involved.

Obviously you don't because NASA, and every other space launch agency, launches for earth orbit at a about 5 miles per second before going to the 7 mile per second escape velocity. 

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 25, 2019, 07:07:54 PM

In RET 'up' is away from the center of the earth and 'down' is towards it. Up and down are not universal directions in your model. Regardless of actual paths taken, the statement is most certainly correct in regards to what needs to occur.

I agree with the speed required, but in not the direction that you claim.  Again, NASA goes for earth orbit first, which is more or less horizontal (parallel or concentric to the surface of the round earth).  After earth orbit, they generally transfer to a parabolic or hyperbolic trajectory, which is still not anywhere close to "straight up" relative to the earth.

In short, "7 miles per second away from the earth" is not necessarily the same as "7 miles per second straight up".

It doesn't matter if NASA claimed that they needed to do a summer sault to get there. The mechanics to reach escape velocity demands that the craft reaches 7 miles per second in straight line relation from the center of the earth - "up", a fundamental mechanical rule which was derived long before the existence of NASA.

This is usually how escape velocity is taught, and what the sentence is referring to. The seven miles per second should have made it clear what the subject was -- but apparently not. There are many different possible applications to get there, yet the rule remains.

The idea behind the sentence is that there was a lot of pre-NASA controversy that it would be very difficult to get to seven miles a second against the force of gravity; considered to be an absurdity to some.

It doesn't matter if NASA claimed that they needed to do a summer sault to get there.
 The mechanics to reach escape velocity demands that the craft reaches 7 miles per second in straight line relation from the center of the earth - "up",

No, it does not have to be straight up! Enough tangential velocity to enter a parabolic orbit will also escape earth's gravitational field.

But reaching the moon does not require escape velocity anyway.
The Apollo craft first entered a circular orbit at about 200 km altitude then entered a highly elliptical Lunar Transfer Orbit and finally had to slow down slightly to enter lunar orbit.
This sort of trajectory:

From: Delta-V chart mathematics

The Apollo trajectory is a comparatively fast route.
The latest Indian spacecraft is using "gravity assist" (the Oberth effect) to get to the moon using far less fuel.

a fundamental mechanical rule which was derived long before the existence of NASA.

Derived by whom?

They needed to get the craft traveling at 7 miles per second in straight light relationship from the center of the earth. It doesn't matter what they had to do to do that. It's the rules. Many other proposals and ship designs had different dynamics.

Yes, they did claim that the final stage of the Saturn V reached escape velocity.

Derived by mathematicians regarding possible space travel long before NASA. Newton postulated escape velocities, in fact.

They needed to get the craft traveling at 7 miles per second in straight light relationship from the center of the earth. It doesn't matter what they had to do to do that. It's the rules. Many other proposals and ship designs had different dynamics.

Yes, they did claim that the final stage of the Saturn V reached escape velocity.

Derived by mathematicians regarding possible space travel long before NASA. Newton postulated escape velocities, in fact.

Technically no, Markjo and Rab are right. Specifically for Apollo, Trans Lunar Injection was used to break free of earth's gravity.

In order to go straight up from the center of earth and the surface of the earth, yes, 7 miles per second or 25,000 miles per hour would be required to escape earth's gravitational pull, aka 'escape velocity'. But what Apollo did was orbit the earth then fire Stage 3 a second time to get to around 23,000 mph, using the slingshot as well as the Moon's gravitational pull to escape earth's gravity.

From the Apollo Missions flight data:

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-24_Translunar_Injection.htm

It doesn't matter what they claimed to have done. There were many possible tactics discussed. The rules of gravitation say that it needs to be a straight line relationship from the center of the earth. This is the reference, the rule, and what they had to achieve. Derived long, long, before NASA, and has nothing to do with any procedure Apollo used. A fundamental mechanic of the system.

It doesn't matter what they claimed to have done. It can also be done with straight line movement. The rules of gravitation say that it needs to be a straight line relationship from the center of the earth. This is the reference, the rule, and what they had to achieve. Derived long, long, before NASA, and has not been thing to do with any procedure Apollo used.

What's the reference, the rule you are referring to?

They needed to get the craft traveling at 7 miles per second in straight light relationship from the center of the earth. It doesn't matter what they had to do to do that. It's the rules. Many other proposals and ship designs had different dynamics.

Yes, they did claim that the final stage of the Saturn V reached escape velocity.

Derived by mathematicians regarding possible space travel long before NASA. Newton postulated escape velocities, in fact.

Totally wrong.

Escape velocity isn’t what you think it is.  It’s a initial speed required for ballistic trajectory with no further thrust to completely escape the gravitational field of a planet.

That just means that if you fire something straight up at 7 miles a second (ignoring air resistance), gravity will never pull it back down again.

Anything in orbit, including the moon, is still very much in the earth’s gravitational field. Because that’s how orbits work.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 25, 2019, 11:34:04 PM

They needed to get the craft traveling at 7 miles per second in straight light relationship from the center of the earth. It doesn't matter what they had to do to do that. It's the rules. Many other proposals and ship designs had different dynamics.

Yes, they did claim that the final stage of the Saturn V reached escape velocity.

Derived by mathematicians regarding possible space travel long before NASA. Newton postulated escape velocities, in fact.

Totally wrong.

Escape velocity isn’t what you think it is.  It’s a initial speed required for ballistic trajectory with no further thrust to completely escape the gravitational field of a planet.

That just means that if you fire something straight up at 7 miles a second (ignoring air resistance), gravity will never pull it back down again.

Anything in orbit, including the moon, is still very much in the earth’s gravitational field. Because that’s how orbits work.

I fail to see how this corrects or contradicts what I said at all.

What's the reference, the rule you are referring to?

The rule that you need to be traveling at 7 miles per second in a straight line relationship from the center of the earth. Escape Velocity is in reference to the center of the earth.

Quote from: Unconvinced on July 26, 2019, 01:10:43 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 25, 2019, 11:34:04 PM

They needed to get the craft traveling at 7 miles per second in straight light relationship from the center of the earth. It doesn't matter what they had to do to do that. It's the rules. Many other proposals and ship designs had different dynamics.

Yes, they did claim that the final stage of the Saturn V reached escape velocity.

Derived by mathematicians regarding possible space travel long before NASA. Newton postulated escape velocities, in fact.

Totally wrong.

Escape velocity isn’t what you think it is.  It’s a initial speed required for ballistic trajectory with no further thrust to completely escape the gravitational field of a planet.

That just means that if you fire something straight up at 7 miles a second (ignoring air resistance), gravity will never pull it back down again.

Anything in orbit, including the moon, is still very much in the earth’s gravitational field. Because that’s how orbits work.

I fail to see how this corrects or contradicts what I said at all.

Quote from: Stash on July 26, 2019, 12:39:05 AM

What's the reference, the rule you are referring to?

The rule that you need to be traveling at 7 miles per second in a straight line relationship from the center of the earth. Escape Velocity is in reference to the center of the earth.

You said, "They needed to get the craft traveling at 7 miles per second in straight light relationship from the center of the earth." They didn't.

They did claim to achieve escape velocity with the third stage. Google is at your disposal.

Quote from: Unconvinced on July 26, 2019, 01:10:43 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 25, 2019, 11:34:04 PM

They needed to get the craft traveling at 7 miles per second in straight light relationship from the center of the earth. It doesn't matter what they had to do to do that. It's the rules. Many other proposals and ship designs had different dynamics.

Yes, they did claim that the final stage of the Saturn V reached escape velocity.

Derived by mathematicians regarding possible space travel long before NASA. Newton postulated escape velocities, in fact.

Totally wrong.

Escape velocity isn’t what you think it is.  It’s a initial speed required for ballistic trajectory with no further thrust to completely escape the gravitational field of a planet.

That just means that if you fire something straight up at 7 miles a second (ignoring air resistance), gravity will never pull it back down again.

Anything in orbit, including the moon, is still very much in the earth’s gravitational field. Because that’s how orbits work.

I fail to see how this corrects or contradicts what I said at all.

Maybe you need to actually explain what your issue is with what NASA claims to have done?

You’re just quoting the surface escape velocity.  So what?

Wow cherry pick and hang onto semantics a bit more there tomB.

To escpae earth, they dont need to travel in a straight line.

Try this.
Climb a steep hill by gping STRAIGHT UP, at a consistent pace.
Then try by zig zagging.
Same pace.
One requires more POWER than the other.
As per numerous people have pointed out - by turning they can still escape...

And that turn is what you and yoyr others have claimed to "avoid the dome".