I've already answered her. You're an expert please explain it to her. Thank you.

G'day Moon Man

When are you going to explain to us how Russian and Chinese spacecraft return to Earth?

It is a immediate response to Hostons question to say again. The funny part is Houston say; this is Houston, say again...Ha!

No, it is not an immediate response; in the primary record it occurs several seconds after Houston's call for a repeat. The delay is, in fact, so long that secondary sources routinely compress it.

The primary record contains more information as well: between Houston's call for a repeat and the second transmission reporting a problem, there is a bleed-over from the intercom system. The astronauts used the same headsets to talk to each other over the intercom as they did to talk over the radio to Houston. The diodes in the switching circuits sometimes leak, causing distorted versions of the intercom conversations to be sent back on the radio. Not only did commander Lovell have plenty of time between Houston's call and his response, we can tell that he was actually engaged in local conversation with his crewmates during the delay.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

No Moon Man, I already know the answer - I am asking you WHY you think that being in a vacuum would make a difference.

Pease answer directly.


And I'm not a "her" by the way.

__________________
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

It won't upload. My computer has AIDS and that maybe why. Can I do the same thing using http://www.imageshack.us

..?

Imageshack works for me.

I've already answered her. You're an expert please explain it to her.

But you haven't answered me.

Your approach to the requirement of expertise is inconsistent. When you are required to come up with detailed answers, you say you can't because you're not an expert. This implies that expertise is required in order to speak with authority. But earlier you said that expertise was not required in order to drawn authoritative conclusions on these various questions.

Which is the case? Is expertise required or not?

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Sorry I thought you were a female. If you know the answer why ask..?

Don't answer this question because I'm not going to answer you. I'm trying to get caught up. It's as impossible as NASA landing on the moon..Ha!

The dude who is really corrupt is Rumsfelt. He helped pull off Apollo...

Dark Side of the Moon is itself a hoax -- admitted cheerfully by its director.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Look what I found:
http://www.arts-letters.com/apollo13/audio.html
There's lot of guys talking in there. EECOM, CAPCOM and others.

Oh brother. I'm asking you this:

Why do you believe that temperature behaves differently in a vacuum?


It's a simple request. I'm not asking you to do any complicated reading or mathematics - I'm asking you WHY is it that you believe something to be true.


Do not ignore this question Moon Man - it would be the height of rudeness.


edited - swapped the word "think" for "believe"

__________________
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

Then there is this
http://www.engineering.sdstate.edu/~...es/problem.wav
Can you hear the background music? Obviously edited for dramatic effect.

Being new here I was hopeful moon man was going to put forward a valid argument as his first post seemed quite positive, how wrong I have been it has not all been a total waste of my time as I have enjoyed watching you guys in action .
Goodnight people it has been a pleasure

NASA couldn't get off the launch pad in 67 and you flew around the moon a year later. A year later NASA landed on the moon. If it were all true they would've test flown the lander in space in 68. The lander was never tested. You built all of your apollo equipment without the aid of CAD, because it never existed at the time. NASA used a slide ruler. You pulled off all of this stuff 3 years before the pocket calculator was even available.

How long would it take to refit the shuttle to fly around the moon if it was really doable..?

I say 3 years.


Why haven't they sent a probe to take pics of the Apollo junk left on the moon..?


Because there is nothing to take a pic of, that's why.

However, Japan is sending a probe up in 2006. I bet they blackmail American. I expect a big US-Japan trade deal or something soon to happen in order to keep them from sending it or keeping the results a secret.

Why do you continue to ignore my question? I don’t want you to prove anything, I merely want to know why you believe that a vacuum makes a difference to temperature.

You insist on avoiding this question – all I’m asking for is an opinion. Please answer.





Why did they need CAD? Ever heard of paper and pencil? That's how it was done. Why do you think that they needed pocket claculators? They had computers and BRAINS. Moon man, you really seem to be showing your youth if you think that the only way to do complex things is with computers.

And please don't say "you" when you are refering to the space program- I don't work for NASA and I'm not an American.

It has already been stated on several occasions that the shuttle can not fly to the moon. It was never designed to do it. I repeat - it can't do it. Why do you believe that it can?


Why should they?


edited to add - Even for a hoax believer this is real kindergarten stuff.

__________________
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

You're not shy about promoting your ignorance are you? The LM was tested in Earth orbit during Apollo 9 and around the Moon during Apollo 10. This kind of information is so trivial to acquire, why can't you seem to find it?

Why is CAD required? Have you ever heard of a sliderule?

This number is based on your vast experience in spacecraft design?

Why would you waste resources to take pictures of events that already have overwhelming evidence?

__________________
"A mystic is a person who is puzzled before the obvious but who understands the nonexistent." -- Elbert Hubbard

Moon Man said: They did. Apollo 5 tested the lunar module unmanned in orbit around the Earth in 1968.

See above.

All sorts of things were designed and built without CAD and pocket calculators. From a design point of view, why was it necessary for anything to do with Apollo?

It's not doable. The Shuttle was never designed to go to the Moon, and more than an oil tanker is designed to take paying passengers.

I say a lot more than that. An entirely new vehicle would be required.

Why should they? To satisfy you? Anyway, NASA will be sending a spacecraft to the Moon in a couple of years, and it should be able to image the larger things left on the surface of the Moon.

What will you say when these images appear? That they were faked? Or that NASA sent stuff to the Moon to make it look like they were there?

Moon Man, please understand you've said nothing which people at this board haven't heard many times. We've asked you to answer a number of questions which go to the heart of this matter, so we'd appreciate your answers.

Cheers

Hamlet and Paulie Jay

I think we made a nice trifecta there. :-)

I've edited the you. I noticed that before you posted. NASA never had computers on board. The chip was not even invented back then. They didn't need a calculator, I said you did all this amazing stuff BEFORE the pocket calculator was invented. I don't know why temps operator differently in a vaccum but they do. Stop asking the same question over and over or I won't answer anymore of your questions. You said you know the answer anyway.

Why can't the shuttle fly to the moon..?

The same reason Apollo couldn't. The van allen belt.

Have you ever stopped to think about how many photos were taken on each mission..?

Have you ever done the math on how many pictures were taken every minute..?

The numbers are laughable.

Now there's something we've never heard before...