This morning, I taped an interview with the Pax TV show "Encounters with the Unexplained". It was about the Hoax of course. It was interesting; given the topics covered and the actual text, I think there is a chance the show will actually be fair! I have no idea, of course, until I see the final edit, but I tried to phrase what I was saying so that "creative editing" would be difficult (a la the Fox show). I don't know when it'll air, but probably in either late March or April. I'll send out a note when I find out.

I've seen a couple of episodes of "Encounter". My impression is that they're mission is to prove that biblical events actually happened as described by the bible. I don't expect anything remotely fair.

Well, it's "in the can" now, so we can just hope for the best and be prepared to close ranks if necessary.

While I believe the Hare Krishna folks have an institutional problem with the moon landings (their cosmology contradicts it), I can't imagine why Christians would want to treat the subject in any way other than scientifically. Several of the astronauts were devout Christians, and Jim Irwin left the astronaut corps to found a Christian ministry.

I'd be surprised if they deny that the moon landings took place. I just wonder how they'll use the interview to support their own theories.

Just a reminder: The show will air on Sunday March 17.
I'm sure there will be a lot to discuss come Monday!!!

I've got my VCR set and ready.

Anybody who misses it can send $20 American S & H to...

__________________
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." [Carl Sagan]

DirecTV's synopsis reads:

Well done, B.A.

By the commercial I was very dismayed. It seemed as if this would be just another unrestricted soapbox for the hoax crowd. But after the commercial they seemed to have balanced the scales.

Some notes:

Kaysing is still talking, "based on my experience at Rocketdyne." Did anyone tell PAX he was the librarian?

I felt the focus on Kubrick was a little odd. I enjoy his films and generally agree with what was said, but it's very easy to rebut an argument that Kubrick had the expertise to stage a moon landing convincingly. See my page http://www.clavius.org/movies.html

I was a little dismayed that the editors led from the question of 1960s technology right into Sibrel's first comment. It makes it sound like Sibrel is a relatively dispassionate video expert expressing his opinion.

Kaysing's claim that he has seen 10,000 pound engines at Rocketdyne throwing boulders across canyons is pure bulldeleted, pardon the language. Just one 757 engine is on the order of 50,000 pounds thrust, and you don't see them digging down to bedrock.

I am going to quibble with B.A.'s discussion of thrust. To say that a rocket engine develops 2,500 pounds of thrust is not the same as saying the exhaust plume exerts a force of 2,500 on an underlying surface. But do not despair; the actual pressure is much lower. See my work in progress: http://www.clavius.org/techexhaust.html

The discussion of the Sibrel footage was a bit disjointed. I expected Sibrel to make the cutout argument, but he stopped short and argued only the window outline argument. I think the rebuttal went well. It would have been better had PAX supplemented the explanation by shuttle footage.

Kaysing's argument that high-temperature ovens could be used to produce any type of rock is, of course, pure garbage. I don't think the refutation worked as well here, and it's likely because B.A. didn't know the specific argument that would be made. All rocks are produced in high temperature environments, including those that are known to be from earth and those known to be from the moon.

I think PAX struck a blow in our favor when they closed by implying that nothing will change the conspiracists' opinions. Kaysing is quoted as saying nothing will change his mind now. This is a departure from his opinion on the Fox program wherein he said that if a photo could be taken of Apollo remnants, he would recant.

As a final note, I love the globes on the desk. Can you score me a moon globe?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Bad Astronomer on 2002-03-17 22:08 ]</font>

I just saw the show on tape.

IMO, Kaysing is just a doddering old fool who should be pumped full of drugs(if he isn't already) and stuck in a nursing home for the rest of his life.

Anyway, on to the review:

When I saw that PAX TV had said that Kaysing as a Rocketdyne "engineer", I was like, bull fritters. I didn't remember what he was, but I knew he wasn't an engineer(he was a librarian. Thanks, JayUtah). The first half of the show had too much of Kaysing just yakking. I just fast forwarded through the parts where either the VO or the idjits were talking. When BA was talking, I stopped what I was doing and paid 100% attention to you... [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] Just kidding. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] I just watched the parts with BA in them.

Finally, IMO, Sibrel needs to get a life. He's young, he's got a chance to meet someone who'll knock some sense into him...Nah.

__________________
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." [Carl Sagan]

Jay,

Have you thought of producing a video? Just wondering...

When I saw that PAX TV had said that Kaysing as a Rocketdyne "engineer", I was like, bull fritters.

Yes. Apparently the forum rules don't allow what I believe to be the most descriptive words for Kaysing's arguments, so "fritters" will have to approximate it. That's what you get for writing a review right after you see something. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Seriously, 10,000 lbf won't even lift two Ford Explorers in earth gravity. It simply ain't that much thrust. I'm sure Kaysing saw some powerful engines at Rocketdyne, but the LM descent engine wasn't one of them.

I didn't remember what he was, but I knew he wasn't an engineer(he was a librarian. Thanks, JayUtah).

To be specific he was the head of technical publications and a technical writer. Speaking as an engineer who has spent his career dealing with technical writers: technical writers are not engineers.

Kaysing says he had a security clearance, and I have no reason to doubt him. He would have needed such a clearance in order to handle the secret documents -- even if he didn't understand them.

Finally, IMO, Sibrel needs to get a life. He's young, he's got a chance to meet someone who'll knock some sense into him.

Why would he do that? If he forgot all his moon hoax stuff then nobody would want to interview him. He likes being the center of attention, even if it's to say, "Please oh please oh please buy my video, I've spent half a million dollars on it."

Have you thought of producing a video?

Yes, I have. I don't have the skills myself to do it professionally, but I could easily serve as an advisor to a professional filmmaker who wanted to do it. I haven't really pursued any contacts on that.

Right now I'm concentrating on the web site, and I'm beginning a book on the subject of the moon hoax. Perhaps with those accomplishments completed I can attract the attention of a filmmaker -- and more importantly, someone who will pay for it. Producing a video of sufficient quality would be a very expensive proposal.

Another of Kaysing's favorite arguments in his own words is: "In the late '50s, when I was at Rocketdyne, they did a feasibility study on astronauts landing on the moon. They found that the chance of success was something like .0017 percent. In other words, it was hopeless." This is nothing but pure crap in my opinion. I think the feasibility studies were done in the mid-60's.
_________________
"The contemplation of celestial things will make man both speak and think more sublimely and magnificently when he descends to human affairs." -Marcus Cicero

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AstroMike on 2002-03-17 23:42 ]</font>

Here's a few things that I noticed.

Kaysing's claim about the descent engine made me laugh. First of all, the temperature of the exhaust products was not 5000F. I believe that the maximum temperature was around 2500F, which drops off after it expands through the engine bell and then into the vacuum.

I think Phil just used the 2500 lbf force on the surface as not to confuse the average viewer. One only needs to go the clavis.org site to see how complex the analysis is. I've sent Phil a few e-mails over the past year or so and I know he knows that all of the 2500 pounds of thrust does not impact the surface.

I also found the NASA ovens to make the moon rocks a real joke. About a year ago, he was on Fox News and said that the moon rocks were meteorites that were collected by Werhner Von Braun when he visited Antartica in Jan 1969. I kid you not.

Even if NASA had the capability to "make rocks" in an oven, here are two things to consider.

1. All of the exposed rocks that were collected have a surface feature called "zap pits." These are micro-craters that are only visible under microscope. I have two geologist friends who have handled moon rocks (using three sets of gloves) and their comment to me was that they know of no way that zap pits can be made on Earth.

2. The claim that the moon rocks were made on Earth and no one could tell if they were from the moon or not is false. During the solidication process, the melt experiences severe natural convection heat transfer (hot parts of the liquid rise and cold parts sink due to buoyancy forces which are dependant on the local gravity field). The shape of the crystalline structure is directly related to this heat transfer process. On the moon natural convection would be much less, since the gravity is less, so the crystalline structure would be much different. Some one with experience could easily tell a fake moon rock by looking at a cross section of the rock.

Just so you know, I did my Ph.D. dissertation on melting and soldification processes.

Maybe it's just wishful thinking, but it seemed to me that PAX let Kaysing and Siebrel hang themselves with thier whacky claims.

This is nothing but pure crap in my opinion. I think the feasibility studies were done in the mid-60's.

Some were, no doubt, especially the serious ones intended to explore different long-term plans. But that doesn't necessarily preclude that Rocketdyne and other companies may have done their own studies earlier. The date Kaysing gives for his report is 1959. But unfortunately we are not permitted to examine the report itself. I wonder if Rocketdyne would release it, if it exists. It's not likely to be classified, and they wouldn't give away any trade secrets by doing it.

The problem with any feasibility study done in 1959 is the amount of guesswork that would have to go into it. At that time manned spaceflight was still unrealized. Large-scale boosters had yet to be designed and built. Not much was known about the moon. The authors of such a study would certainly know how confident it was, and how much of the final opinion was based on guesses or estimates that could change radically. But a layman like Kaysing would not necessarily understand what the conclusion depended on.

Whether the report existed or not, it's not unreasonable to suppose that a dismal opinion was floating around Rocketdyne in 1959.

Well, I'm convinced. NASA faked the moon landings and wrote the bible.

I believe that the maximum temperature was around 2500F

The RCS plume deflectors were designed for a temperature of either 1800 F or 2800 F, I forget exactly which. Same fuel, same combustion.

which drops off after it expands through the engine bell and then into the vacuum.

The nozzle ratio alone on the DPS is something like 40:1. So the temperature at the exit plane, ignoring heat loss through radiation and convection to the nozzle itself, will be only a fraction of the chamber temperature.

I think Phil just used the 2500 lbf force on the surface as not to confuse the average viewer.

That would have to be the case. Phil and I discussed this some months ago, before I made the computations, and never reached a precise conclusion about what was an appropriate method. That's what led me to tackle the problem for real on Clavius. At the time I lacked certain necessary values like the mass flow rate and the density of the exhaust product. But after banging my head suitably on the desk I devised methods for reliably estimating them.

Having made those computations (and still refining them), I have no idea yet how to reduce that to a sound bite for a lay audience. A lay audience could be made to understand the concepts without difficulty, but the devil is in the details -- specifically the quantitative details. How you compute the exhaust pressure is largely irrelevant to the debate if you don't put numbers into the computation. And once you start dealing with numbers you've gone beyond the scope of a sound bite on a television show.

Reluctant as I am to exchange one inaccurate model for another, I can't really see how Phil could have made a physically accurate, quantitative rebuttal in the 30-or-so seconds of the average couch potato's attention span. This is why I quibble rather than object.

Inaccuracies aside, I think he touched on the important elements:

1. The DPS had to be throttled down; 10,000 lbf thrust is not appropriate for touchdown.

2. The force is spread out over a 4+ foot circle.

3. Such a distributed force has quantitative paragons in the lay-familiar world.

4. Even if the hoax believers' model of gas impingement were correct, their argument fails quantitatively. This cannot be overestimated. It's one thing to show that their model is incorrect. It's another thing to show that they can't even competently employ their own model.

We have to recall that the hoax theorists have the burden of proof to demonstrate that their expectation of a crater is based on physics and not sensationalism.

As you can see on Clavius I take a progressive approach. My first stab at quantization is simply to compare the LM engine to other engines the layman might be familiar with -- the Harrier, a 747, etc. This helps the reader evaluate the credibility of Kaysing's purported observations. Then there are the more quantitative arguments culminating in the detailed estimates which I assume most readers won't be interested in.

I know he knows that all of the 2500 pounds of thrust does not impact the surface.

As do I. I just wanted to stress the difference between a 2,500 lbf thrust rating, and pressure from the gas on an underlying surface. The two are not equivalent concepts because one derives from momentum (linear treatment of velocity) and the other derives from kinetic energy (second-order treatment of velocity). Even people on our side get this wrong.

The shape of the crystalline structure is directly related to this heat transfer process.

Hm, a few of these concepts are bubbling up through my memory from studying metallurgy in college. I recall that certain alloys (e.g., zinc and aluminum) cannot be made in gravity because of this and similar phenomena. They must be manufactured in the absence of gravity.

Some one with experience could easily tell a fake moon rock by looking at a cross section of the rock.

This is a key argument. Most of the hoax believers don't know anything about geology. And so they don't know what geologists know or how they know it. And upon that basis they make estimations of how geologists could be fooled.

Maybe it's just wishful thinking, but it seemed to me that PAX let Kaysing and Siebrel hang themselves with thier whacky claims.

I wouldn't go that far. Clearly the parting shot was in our favor. Any time you hear someone say, "Nothing will change my mind," you probably have a crackpot on your hands.

Overall I thought the coverage was fair. It felt like the producers gave Kaysing and Sibrel more air time than BA, but they had to give these guys rope (to hang themselves with). And BA did good job debunking their arguments in the allotted five to ten seconds segments.

This leads to a question. When watching the flag waving segment, the flag waving did not appear to me to be evidence of fakery but just the opposite. The motion of the flag appeared to be a perfect example of wave motion that would result when the astronauts twisted the pole into the ground. You even can see a perfect little whip at the unattached corner of the flag. Now on Earth, with air resistance, can you get this type of motion? I haven't gone out and tried twisting a flag into the ground, but I suspect you will not get this clean wave motion. Comments, anyone?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Wiley on 2002-03-18 09:51 ]</font>

This point should be hammered at further. In the lunar gravity, the module is, what, 2500-3000 lbs? If the thrusters had provided 10,000 lbs thrust at the lunar surface, it would have taken off again!

I watched (and taped... I may replay it later) the PAX show. It seemed the BA got short-changed some, but I'm prejudiced.

Two quick points:

1) Let's say that Rocketdyne really did calculate the chances of success at 0.0017% in 1959. So what? These are engineers we're talking about. Tell an engineer a problem is almost impossible to solve and all you do is get his juices flowing. The only problems really worth solving are the "impossible" kind.

And, that was 1959. The thing about technology is that it improves over time. (Idle query, what were the odds of successful powered flight in 1893?)

2) Any decent metallurgist or geologist knows all about melt processes and the factors that influence them. Trying to make a "moon rock" in an oven on earth is absurd. Believing it can be done simply illustrates a lack of knowledge of the subject.

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov