Quote:
?Skeptics don't say there aren't any stars visible in space. They say there should be no stars visible from the surface of the moon?.
What?s the difference between aren?t and should not be? Should not be is just a careful play on words to cover your back.
|
As has been explained here already, you generally won't see stars above any brightly-lit scene. The dynamic range of the camera (or the eye) is insufficient. Not a cover-up, just a well-established fact.
Quote:
'Contrary to having "turned the tables" on skeptics, Dave has once again tried to have his cake and eat it too. He says the lack of flame is suspicious, and simultaneously the presence of the flame is suspicious. He should decide whether a flame is visible or not so that he can get straight what is supposed to be suspicious.'
Ok, so lets go with the general agreement on this site that a flame should not appear. Why is one evident in many ascents from the Moon?
|
JayUtah has explained ignition transients already. What part, specifically, don't you understand?
Quote:
'The lunar module was tested successfully numerous times in vacuum chambers to verify its pressure integrity. It was tested in space on Apollos 5, 9, and 10 prior to the first landing. Every aircraft or spacecraft has a first flight test, and it's always a white-knuckle flight, but to say the LM was untested is absolutely false.'
You?re missing the point. The wording I used is ?Who would dare risk using the LEM on the Moon when it was never, ever tested successfully?? The LEM was never successfully landed anywhere until it landed on the Moon. Prove me wrong! I seem to remember Armstrong almost being killed on one of the attempts made.
|
As with a number of other things, you "seem to remember" incorrecty. Armstrong had to eject from an LM simulator, an ungainly open-frame contraption.
As to the "who dared" part, you don't seem to be familiar with much of aerospace history. Who dared to fly the P-38, or the X-15, for the first time? Who dared to fly the space shuttle for the first time. And the LM was flown and checked out in space before the 11 landing. Your question, though dramatic, is meaningless.
Quote:
?Further, the plans for the Soviet lunar spacecraft do not include two meters of shielding.?
And they didn?t go either!
|
They didn't go, period. We went, and there is a massive amount of evidence for it. There is no credible evidence against it.
Quote:
?Conspiracists interpret words like "more dangerous" and "hazardous" as if they somehow mean "instantly deadly", which they do not.?
If I was using a detergent to clean something and the instructions on the back of the container said ?hazardous to health if swallowed? do you think I would drink it? Or would you like to prove your point? Hazardous in my dictionary does mean life threatening.
|
Yes, spaceflight is hazardous. Smoking is hazardous. If you smoke for a long time, you are putting yourself at a significantly increased risk of a number of diseases. If you once puff a pack of Camels over a two-week period, you haven't materially affected your long-term health.
Quote:
'The Apollo Guidance Computer was not intended to be a general purpose computer. It was designed to fulfill its specific mission, and did so.'
My current car has an onboard computer of around 64mb. All it does is read the temperature, speedo, mph and have electric windows etc. Obviously the Apollo craft had a lot more gadgetry to them. Even a calculator has more memory than 32k and considering that the computer aboard the Apollo was used for making calculations, how do you suggest that such a small memory computer could cope with the task?
|
Well, to anyone familiar with embedded programming, especially for spacecraft, the answer is simply efficent programming. Are you seriously suggesting it wasn't possible to write the guidance code in 32K?
Also, this computer was *not* responsible for managing most of the spacecraft subsystems, as you have implicitly claimed.
You have made two claims about the Apollo guidance computer which are incorrect. Do you retract them? If not, why not?
Quote:
?Neither the Hubble Space Telescope nor the Clementine probe has the required optical resolution to see objects on the lunar surface as small as the Apollo hardware.?
You better get in touch with NASA if you believe this because they have released images of the Apollo hardware, both on motion film and still photos - or are you calling them liars?
|
So you do believe that Apollo hardware has been imaged on the Moon since the '70s?
Anyway, you took the quote out of context. It is theoretically impossible for Hubble to image Apollo hardware. Clementine took some images which are right at the resolution limit, much as Mars Global Surveyer took pictures which *may* have shown the wreck of Mars Polar Lander.
What exactly are you trying to say with your statement? That NASA can take pictures of Apollo items on the Moon?
Quote:
To my question 30 on my site which states ? In the year 2002 NASA does not have the technology to land any man, or woman on the Moon, and return them safely to Earth.?
<.... And more words saying it's "odd" NASA doesn't use Apollo technology to go back to the Moon.>
|
We also have the technology to build new Iowa-class battleships. The reason that we're not building new Apollo stacks is that there is no political mandate to do so. You insinuate that there is something sinister about this. You have provided no evidence for such a spin.
Quote:
|
<Words about NASA budget>... The whole Apollo project cost an estimated $25 billion. So NASA would have more than that amount in just 2 years. Why do they have to cut back on resources?
|
If I didn't pay for food, clothing, shelter, or medical care for two years I'd have enough for a nice vacation. So? NASA has many missions, such as aeronautical research, astronomy, etc. A whopping chunk of NASA's budget is also tied up with the money-hungry Station and Shuttle. You have evidently confused "budget" with "free cash flow".
Quote:
<Regarding documentation>
Oh how convenient, and you don?t think this is suspect? If this were the situation in the UK there would be a national outcry if our Government dared to destroy evidence of a piece of our History of such great ignificance. Why didn?t NASA offer the documents to a private buyer?
|
NASA has stored an enormous amount of publically-available technical material on Apollo. If contractors did not efficiently archive bulky technical material for a purpose-built rocket for a program which had run out of political steam, that's hardly unexpected to anyone familiar with aerospace, at least in the U.S.
Your premise, that we are somehow technologically incapable of getting back to the Moon, is mistaken. The technology is doable. The budget and will to do so is not.
Quote:
?It's not as easy to hide a satellite as Sibrel believes.?
Perhaps you could tell this to China who only recently discovered a huge American spy satellite watching over them.
|
Can you please provide the reference for this?
And, in any case, it's a non-sequitir. You have claimed that Apollo transmissions came from Earth orbit. But in the previous paragraph, you buttressed your claim (about tracking by hams) with the fact that Apollo was generally in line with the moon during the round trip.
*Nothing* in Earth orbit can move in such a manner. So, either Apollo was not in Earth orbit during the roundtrip, or you have claimed contradictory evidence for your ham-tracking point.
Which is it?