Moon hoax article 3/27/2003 - Page 3

JayUtah · #61 (**permalink**) 03-June-2003, 05:00 PM

Not directly. Air contains chemical compounds which bond to the particles. Thus most particles on earth feature a patina or layer of oxides that inhibit inter-particle chemical bonds. On the moon the particles expose their raw surfaces, providing chemical and crystalline bonding surfaces.

Mechanical energy from compression (i.e., footsteps) rubs the particles together. On earth, oxides would form instantly at the point of abrasion, but in a vacuum the energy of abrasion will sometimes "cold weld" particles together. Because of the shape of the particles the surface contact area is very small. But it is true that particles are "stickier" in a vacuum and thus will hold an impression better.

JayUtah · #62 (**permalink**) 03-June-2003, 05:49 PM

Disregard that review by Denise M. Clark. I had a conversation with her over the weekend about Voron. In a nutshell, she wishes she'd never written the review. Voron has been pushing that review all over the net, sometimes impersonating Clark in order to do it. She's contemplating legal action against him.

BigJim · #63 (**permalink**) 16-June-2003, 08:58 PM

More from Der Voron.

Quote:

Zetatalk suggests several methods to survive the coming catastrophic pole shift created by the arrival of Planet X, including the construction of oval-shaped buildings and refuges, and moving away from the coasts to avoid the coming giant tidal waves.

Why would building oval-shaped houses change anything? It's difficult to debunk this directly because Zetatalk has never fully explained what a pole shift is.

Quote:

If extraterrestrial starcraft often visit your neighborhood (and if there are many "UFO" sightings, they likely do) then you might barter with the aliens in exchange for escaping in their starcraft -- or at least traveling above Earth during the worst of the pole shift catastrophes.

Yep. Sure. The next time I see an extraterrestrial, I'll buy his spacecraft.

Quote:

Past observations indicate that extraterrestrials understand human speech -- whether the aliens are inside or outside of their starships! We know this because there are cases in which starcraft have responded to human voice commands while flying by, shifting direction forward, back, up, down, etc, as requested by the human.

??????

Pure lies. Nothing else to say. But a fair indication of the mental state of this guy.

BigJim · #64 (**permalink**) 16-June-2003, 09:18 PM

Uh-oh. Here are a few more Voron moon hoax arguments that we didn't cover. (Did anyone notice what happens when you replace the V with an M.....)

Quote:

Was the "Moon craft" similar to Space Shuttle, the only spacecraft able to return after it is launched into the space (if we don't take in account the Russian Buran, which doesn't fly nowadays because of financial problems)? But Shuttle lands with the use of its wings, it flies similarly to an aircraft when landing. How could the "Moon craft" land in the airless lunar atmosphere, as wings would not be of help here because of absence of air?

His sentence makes little sense. He has no idea why spacecraft are specialized for certain tasks, apparently. The LM was not, in fact, reusable. The Shuttle lands using its wings. The LM landed on the Moon using the DPS rocket engine. Simple as that. I can't think of much to say, because this statement is so illogical.

Quote:

And if it was possible to create such a craft, then this means that a better technology than the Space Shuttle could be created. Then why so much money was spent to create the Space Shuttle?

The LM could not be used for cargo, for landing on Earth, or be reused. His English seems to be quite poor.

Quote:

To take off, the spacecraft, both modern and of those times (60-70s), needs a carrier rocket weighing many tons, yet more tons of fuel for it, and a powerful space-vehicle launching site.

Debunked already. Laughable, though.

Quote:

We certainly can take into account that a rocket able to launch a spacecraft from the Moon should have the power of about 36 times less than here on Earth -- as the Moon’s gravity is 6 times smaller and the thrust needed will decrease 36 times if antigravity force is 6 times less,

WHAT? IS HE INSANE?

This guy has a really firm grasp of orbital mechanics. He seems to think that the mass of a vehicle required to launch into orbit is a simple matter of arithmetic based on the amount of gravity.

Quote:

Parameters of carrier rocket Ariane-5 are provided above only as an example, this rocket is not able to launch a spacecraft into outer space

Then why do we have it? How did the Cluster spacecraft reach orbit?

Quote:

If even we suppose that several carrier rockets like "Columbia" could deliver all this to the Moon in several lunar modules (seems this should have been a very hard task for such modules to land on the Moon since the Moon has no atmosphere, which diminishes the speed of similar modules when these land on the Earth)

The LM couldn't land on Earth. The larger amount of gravity far outweighs any benefit you might get by utilizing air resistance.

Quote:

And if somehow no launching site construction was still required to take off from the Moon, why are there no photographs or videos of the spacecraft taking off from it?

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17v.launch.mov
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17ascent.jpg

Quote:

Wasn't it impossible to take photograph/videos of the spacecraft taking off from the Moon, from "Columbia" rocket?

Yes. But not from the magical device we call the LRV.

Quote:

Did the NASA astronauts return to "Columbia", "which remained in lunar orbit", using the rope that was hanging out of it?

My favorite Voron phrase.

Quote:

Or maybe NASA astronauts still visited the Moon (in the antigrav) and videoed/photoed all what is claimed to be lunar videos and photos,

Yep. The antigravs.

JayUtah · #65 (**permalink**) 16-June-2003, 10:03 PM

The Shuttle lands using its wings. The LM landed on the Moon using the DPS rocket engine.

I explained this to Voron. He said, "Explain how a rocket engine can be used to land." That's one of those messages where you just have to put your face in your hands for a minute and resist saying the first thing that comes into your mind.

... because this statement is so illogical.

That is precisely what makes a conversation with Der Voron so frustrating. He literally has no understanding of reason or logic. It is simply incomprehensible to him that he could possibly be wrong.

His English seems to be quite poor.

Agreed, and this is why I have typically been charitable with him. Some -- but not many -- of his foibles are due to his misunderstanding of English words and phrases.

Quote:

We certainly can take into account that a rocket able to launch a spacecraft from the Moon should have the power of about 36 times less than here on Earth -- as the Moon’s gravity is 6 times smaller and the thrust needed will decrease 36 times if antigravity force is 6 times less,

WHAT? IS HE INSANE?

Yes, probably. Or rather, completely ignorant. I tried to explain mass ratios to him. I tried to explain specific impulse and all those other things that are in chapter one of any propulsion textbook. He dismissed them because he couldn't make them fit his model. At no point did he contemplate that his model might be entirely faulty.

Quote:

Parameters of carrier rocket Ariane-5 are provided above only as an example, this rocket is not able to launch a spacecraft into outer space

Then why do we have it? How did the Cluster spacecraft reach orbit?

He means it's only able to launch to low earth orbit. And he understands nothing about mass ratio and how it affects payload capacity and maximum ceiling. How do you explain such things to a person who knows nothing but is convinced he knows everything?

First, he didn't know that the LM came in two stages. That was a revelation to him. Then he wanted to know the mass of the lunar module. He said it was 17 tons (the launch mass) and couldn't understand why I was "deceiving" him by telling him the dry mass of the ascent stage alone. He would only accept the fully loaded mass of the ascent stage, and then wanted to know the mass of the rocket that would be required to send that module back to earth. He didn't understand that it was headed only to low lunar orbit, and he didn't understand that the LM ascent stage was the rocket.

The really sad thing is that I've explained this to 13-year-olds -- including the math -- and they got it.

Did the NASA astronauts return to "Columbia", "which remained in lunar orbit", using the rope that was hanging out of it?

At this point you realize Der Voron doesn't live in the same universe, mentally speaking, as we do. What scares me is not that people like Der Voron are out there. What scares me is the droves of editors who legitimize these frankly insane ramblings by publishing them, even under "News of the Weird" headings. This man needs serious help.

Donnie B. · #66 (**permalink**) 16-June-2003, 10:30 PM

I know it's really hard to tell, but is it possible that the "rope dangling from Columbia" line is his weak attempt at sarcasm? As in: "Suuure, thaaaat's how they got back... they climbed a real long rope ladder!"

Rather along the lines of those conspiricistas (not a typo... :P ) who talk about us NUTTERS and astro-NOTs...

JayUtah · #67 (**permalink**) 16-June-2003, 10:35 PM

It's possible, but considering that Der Voron really is as misinformed as he appears, it's not clear he's joking.

BigJim · #68 (**permalink**) 17-June-2003, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Then why do we have it? How did the Cluster spacecraft reach orbit?

He means it's only able to launch to low earth orbit.

But he's still wrong. The Ariane 5 can launch spacecraft out of Earth orbit. Rosetta is to be launched by an Ariane 5, as is NetLander.

jrkeller · #69 (**permalink**) 17-June-2003, 11:05 PM

I think really sad thing about the Der Voron thing is that there are people who actually believe his insane ramblings and buy his book.

JayUtah · #70 (**permalink**) 17-June-2003, 11:16 PM

The Ariane 5 can launch spacecraft out of Earth orbit.

Of course it can. The range of any launch vehicle is based on its payload. You have a graph with payload mass on one axis and maximum orbit or altitude on the other axis. You can plot a curve for each vehicle.

The Saturn V's payload capacity was given as so many tons to low-earth orbit, and so many tons (a bit fewer) to a translunar trajectory. You could easily add so many tons (a bit fewer yet) to a Mars trajectory.

BigJim · #71 (**permalink**) 17-June-2003, 11:24 PM

Two things:

Mass ratio is the ratio of wet to dry mass, correct?

Quote:

You have a graph with payload mass on one axis and maximum orbit or altitude on the other axis. You can plot a curve for each vehicle.

Is there a formula for such a curve?

JayUtah · #72 (**permalink**) 17-June-2003, 11:58 PM

Mass ratio is the ratio of wet to dry mass, correct?

Total mass divided by dry mass, yes. There are differences of opinion as to what constitutes "dry mass". Some people want to include undeliverable propellant ("tanking slop") while others want to exclude it. (It's like that argument about whether hard disk manufacturers should be able to define a gigabyte as 1,000,000,000 bytes when others prefer a factor more closely connected to a power of two.)

Is there a formula for such a curve?

No, not really. You would have to make certain assumptions about the ascent trajectory. I think every other empirical difference could be factored away (drag, etc.). So in other words, there might be a formula but it would be an ugly one.

BigJim · #73 (**permalink**) 18-June-2003, 02:15 AM

What's up with these people? It seems that most of the reviewers at Amazon gave Voron's book good reviews! What was the name of the person who Voron is impersonating?

freddo · #74 (**permalink**) 18-June-2003, 05:31 AM

Quote:

What was the name of the person who Voron is impersonating?

Am I the only one who hears the phrase "Duh, Moron!" every time the Authors name is used??

[sits back with his stopwatch, waiting how long someone responds, telling him "Der, Voron!" in response]

JayUtah · #75 (**permalink**) 18-June-2003, 04:28 PM

What was the name of the person who Voron is impersonating?

Denise M. Clark. She has disavowed her review and asked it to be "unpublished" in some of the places where it has appeared. It would not surprise me at all to discover that Voron himself has been reviewing his own book at Amazon in order to increase his sales and credibility.

BigJim · #76 (**permalink**) 18-June-2003, 08:05 PM

Well, now we know that most of those reviews are probably by Voron himself. Observe:

Quote:

(Five Stars) Unidentified Flying Objects, December 10, 2002

Quote:

REVIEWER: Denise M. Clark

So this review is forged?

JayUtah · #77 (**permalink**) 18-June-2003, 09:09 PM

That is indeed the review she wrote, but it may not have been submitted by her to Amazon. Denise has not denied having written the review, but has denied being responsible for plastering it all over the web and in print -- that's Voron's work. Based on some feedback, she did revise her review but I haven't seen the revision. Her ill feelings about her review have much more to do with Der Voron's individual actions than about changing feelings about the review itself. She said she never agreed with his conclusion, but found some of his research intriguing.

BlueAnodizeAl · #78 (**permalink**) 19-June-2003, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayUtah

The only good thing about conspiracism is that it brings out the best in people who are skilled at research, learning, and teaching, but not necessarily motivated to research a particular subject. I became an engineer because I'm bored and restless without a challenge.

Sorry if this is too far down the line, but ME TOO!!!

BigJim · #79 (**permalink**) 20-June-2003, 01:16 PM

Look at Voron's homepage and view the "Invisibility Cloak" article. Complete garbage - why can't he see that the scale of the people "behind" the cloak is totally wrong? A doctored picture, obviously.

What do you make of these statements from that article?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Der Voron

Making a flying vehicle weightless is described as "laghima-siddhi. The propulsion was mano-java.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Der Voron

King Salva had his army killed by sonic weapons. We use INFRA SOUND to do the same thing today; but I believe infra sound creeps backward through the earth and kills the operators also.