Guess this guy never played orbiter

michaeldim

The Dread Pirate
Joined
Nov 6, 2008
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Atlanta
Whenever I spot a conspiracy theorist (Apollo or otherwise) I mock them. Youtube has a thick epidemic of them. I feel that they are just trolling for attention, people to get angry at them and argue. I just mock them, and it seems to work to make them go away.
 

tblaxland

O-F Administrator
Administrator
Addon Developer
Webmaster
Joined
Jan 1, 2008
Messages
7,318
Reaction score
20
Points
113
Location
Sydney, Australia
There's this little thing called "Escape Velocity", the speed where an object is free of a planet's gravity forever. For Earth, that speed is 7500 miles per second. I might recommend a little research before making a conspiracy website.

I hope you fixed that 7500 mail per second before posting, because it is 7500 meters per second :)
Sorry guys, escape velocity from LEO (180km* for Apollo) is 11.03km/s. AFAIK, none of the Apollo missions achieved escape velocity (I only checked three, 8, 11 & 17, they came in the range 10.83 - 10.84km/s).

*The later missions had a lower parking orbit, about 165km IIRC, making their TLI burn more effective due to the Oberth effect.
 

Hielor

Defender of Truth
Donator
Beta Tester
Joined
May 30, 2008
Messages
5,580
Reaction score
2
Points
0
When you guys use false information ("escape velocity"), you're really not helping your case. "If they escaped gravity forever, then how come they came back?"

Please, either make sure you are 100% accurate with everything you say, or, better yet...don't say anything at all.
 

Dambuster

Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
789
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
UK
I've just been inspired to go do some epic conspiracy theorist trolling :D

Thanks and I'll post links to anything of extreme quality ;)
 

tblaxland

O-F Administrator
Administrator
Addon Developer
Webmaster
Joined
Jan 1, 2008
Messages
7,318
Reaction score
20
Points
113
Location
Sydney, Australia
Please, either make sure you are 100% accurate with everything you say, or, better yet...don't say anything at all.
Then I should clarify that in my above post, the escape velocity figure quoted is the escape velocity relative to the Earth's gravity. That is not to say that if you achieve escape velocity, you will escape Earth's gravity, but your trajectory will no longer form a closed path around Earth. You can still come back, just make a burn to make your kinetic energy low enough and gravity will bring you home :cheers:
 

TSPenguin

The Seeker
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
4,075
Reaction score
4
Points
0
You can even make an escape burn and meet earth some years later...
There are countless possibilities.

Does "conspiracy theorist" sound a lot like "conspiracy terrorist" to anyone else?
 

willy88

Tinkerer
Addon Developer
GFX Staff
Joined
Nov 19, 2007
Messages
856
Reaction score
3
Points
18
Location
The Cosmos
Knowing how he reacted to the concept of TLIs, I wonder what this dumbass would say if anyone ever told him of a thing called "direct flight". His brain would probably melt.
 

Andy44

owner: Oil Creek Astronautix
Addon Developer
Joined
Nov 22, 2007
Messages
7,620
Reaction score
5
Points
113
Location
In the Mid-Atlantic states
Does "conspiracy theorist" sound a lot like "conspiracy terrorist" to anyone else?

It's become popular to use the "terrorist" label to describe anyone you wish to suppress. Popular, and dangerous, too.

I hate Apollo CT's, but freedom means the freedom to be stupid.
 

joeybigO

can't get in a word edgewise
Donator
Joined
Jun 10, 2008
Messages
224
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
San Antonio, TX
Technically speaking: NASA cannot and will not engage in any sort of controversy.

from THIS all of the information that they give must be factual and available for review.

And that is the Law, and the right of the first amendment as well.

Sad, but true :(
 

Hielor

Defender of Truth
Donator
Beta Tester
Joined
May 30, 2008
Messages
5,580
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Technically speaking: NASA cannot and will not engage in any sort of controversy.

from THIS all of the information that they give must be factual and available for review.

And that is the Law, and the right of the first amendment as well.

Sad, but true :(
<mode="conspiracy theorist">Right. That's what they WANT you to believe.</mode>
 

tblaxland

O-F Administrator
Administrator
Addon Developer
Webmaster
Joined
Jan 1, 2008
Messages
7,318
Reaction score
20
Points
113
Location
Sydney, Australia
...from THIS all of the information that they give must be factual and available for review.
Except:
Examples of information not releasable under this policy include, without limitation, information that is, or is marked as, classified information,...other sensitive but unclassified information...
:p
 

Andy44

owner: Oil Creek Astronautix
Addon Developer
Joined
Nov 22, 2007
Messages
7,620
Reaction score
5
Points
113
Location
In the Mid-Atlantic states
You guys are wasting your time sending him info he isn't going to read. He doesn't care what you think; it's the people who swallow his BS he's interested in. Getting you riled up makes him happy.

Never fight with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level and then beat you experience. Take it from me, a card-carrying idiot. Better to take the high road and ignore him the way you ignore any other cult leader standing on a street corner yelling nonsense. Or...

...trolling him (as opposed to arguing), on the other hand, can be fun. Irritation is a useful skill, and entertaining to boot.
 

Tommy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Messages
2,019
Reaction score
86
Points
48
Location
Here and now
I got bored at work, so I sent him this:

Hello,

You are in error when you report the mission duration and lunar orbit counts on your "Apollodata" website. Here are some corrections.

Apollo 11: Mission duration (from launch to splashdown = 195:18. Lunar orbits = 30 over 59.5 hours. In this case, the TLI (trans lunar injection, the burn that sent them from Earth orbit to the moon) occurred 2:50 after launch, and Lunar orbit was entered at GET 75:55 (GET, or Ground Elapsed Time, indicates time since launch) for a trip time of just over 73 hours. The TEI (trans Earth injection, or the burn that sends them from the moon to earth) was performed at GET 135:23, and splashdown occurred at GET 195:13, for a trip time of just under 60 hours. Total travel time = 133 hours. While you were close on the travel time and duration, you were completely off on the number of lunar orbits, and slightly off on the time in lunar orbit. This is likely because you seem to neglect the fact that the Apollo missions orbited the Earth at least once before leaving LEO for the moon.

Apollo 12: Duration = 224:36. 45 Lunar orbits over 89.5 hours. Total travel time (not counting the Earth orbit before TLI) was 132 hours.

Apollo 13: Duration = 139 hours. ZERO Lunar orbits. This was a fly-by due to a damaged Service Module.

Apollo 14: Duration = 216 hours. 34 Lunar orbits over 67 hours. You were close on this one.

Apollo 15: Duration = 305 hours. 74 Lunar orbits over 145 hours.

Apollo 16: Duration = 265:51 64 orbits over 126 hours.

Apollo 17: Duration = 301:52 75 lunar orbits.

So, the vast difference in travel times you cite is actually just a result of the bad data you used to make these calculations, as well as your lack of accounting for the time spent in LEO before the TLI burn. Perhaps you should get your data from sources other than a children's book author. BTW, it's "[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]McGraw Hill Encyclopedia of Science & Technology", not [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]"McGraw Hill Encyclopedia of Space & Technology"

Please study up on Newton's Laws of Physics, and Keppler's orbital mechanics. If you did, you would have learned that a "Trans Lunar Orbit" is, in fact, a valid way to get to the moon. The most efficient type of transfer is called a Hohman Transfer, however, due to the long travel time (about two and a half weeks each way) and higher risk factor this was not used. The Apollo missions used a "Free Return Trajectory". This allowed a much faster trip with an increased safety factor. Please look up both terms.

The "spiral" path you claim is the only way to get to the moon has NEVER been used by any manned spaceflight. It is designed for vessels with very low thrust that can sustain that thrust for extremely long periods, such as vessels using Ion propulsion (not rocket engines).

The reason "inexperienced" people were allowed to do spacewalks and other complex tasks was that there were next to no experienced people. It's not like there was a big pool of experienced astronauts. Using different astronauts for the different missions was also a way to limit the exposure to radiation for each astronaut. It was also deemed important to have as many people as possible get that experience, since it's rarely wise to place all your eggs in one basket. It was also considered risky to subject people to too many reentries, due to the excessive G-forces involved. The same way fighter pilots are taken off fighter duty after they've had to use an ejection seat.

As to the quotes from "One Small Step", I again remind you that Tim Furniss is a CHILDREN'S book author, not a scientist, much less an astrophysicist. Any predictions he made weren't educated estimates, by any means. As to the quote by Von Braun, he was a rocket scientist - not a politician. He, like many scientists, assumed that since the technology would be available by then, that people would be doing it.

And no, the Space Shuttle has never gone to the moon. It isn't capable of the velocity needed to get there, nor could it land if it did.

As for how long it takes the Space Shuttle to get to the ISS, you seem completely uninformed about Orbital Mechanics. Please let me simplify. It requires a lot of fuel to change your orbital plane (look that up if you don't know the term). Therefore, the Shuttle launches when the ISS's orbital path passes over Cape Canaveral, even though the ISS may be on the other side of the planet. The Shuttle initially enters a much lower orbit than the ISS. This means that the Shuttle is Orbiting faster than the ISS (it has the "inside lane") so it eventually catches up to the ISS. This can take several orbits. Then the Shuttle ascends to the ISS's altitude in steps, this is more fuel efficient, safer, and more accurate. That's why it takes so long to get to the ISS. The vast majority of that time is spent "coasting", waiting for the conditions to be right for a rendevous.

Also, traveling to the Moon is NOT leaving Earth's orbit. The Moon orbits the Earth.

Cosmic Radiation is one of the reasons that a free return trajectory was chosen for the Apollo missions. The faster trip time helped reduce the exposure to radiation. The Magnetoshere does NOT block all of the radiation, only most of it. We are all exposed to this radiation on a daily basis. Prolonged exposure to high levels would likely cause harm. This will be a factor on a Mars trip that takes over a year each way, but not on a shorter week to ten day trip. One of the reasons we haven't gone back is because of this radiation, we've learned much more about how dangerous it is. We used to give people X-rays a lot more than we do now, because our understanding of the dangers has increased.

And a comment on your NASASCAM page - the Imperial measuring system is not ALWAYS used in the US. The metric system is used in the scientific community because it makes the math easier (since it's based on a decimal system, not an arbitrary system. It eliminates the need to covert inches to feet, feet to miles, etc. It has been used by NASA quite often for this reason.

Of course the pictures were "altered". Not many photo's are published that haven't been. The photo's were altered for image clarity, gamma correction, and even to make them more visually appealing. That doesn't mean they are entirely fake. Tuttle has admitted "improving" the images, but contrary to your assertion, has always maintained that the photo's are not faked, but only enhanced. Really, with the technology available to him, he certainly could have done them all in color. 2001: A Space Odyssey certainly managed to "fake" it in color pretty well, and that was in 1968.

In short, you have demonstrated a complete ignorance of physics and Orbital Mechanics. You also chose references created by completely unqualified people (Furniss). On the one hand, you called his book "fictional" and "fantasy", and then attempted to use data from it to prove your point. Do you not see the contradiction here?

From the sheer number of websites you've created on this topic, you are clearly obsessed with your notion that the moon landings were faked. Yet you provide no evidence that you are in any way qualified to accurately comment on this issue. In fact, you have demonstrated a fundamental lack of knowledge of spaceflight and photography in general.

Please do a little research and update your sites with actual facts, not the misinformation and erroneous data you have been using.
I suspect you'll find that difficult, since truthful data like the mission times I presented above don't support your claims.

[/FONT]

Let you know if he replies.
 

James.Denholm

Addon ponderer
Joined
Feb 8, 2008
Messages
811
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Victoria, Australia
I believe the MSN generation has created a word that sums up this very moment, starting with a "p", and ending with a "d".

Yep, you potatoed him! :p

Well done, Tommy. I especially love it how it seems that there are moments of barely-constrained fury underneath the words. Let's just hope he dosen't take one look at it and press the delete key, though.
 

David

Donator
Donator
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
137
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Having read all of the above criticisms, I am now troubled by a concern that I may be the only one who wants the next version of Orbiter to include a hotkey that will make the spacegrooves visible, for ease of navigation.
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
36,748
Reaction score
1,410
Points
203
Location
Langendernbach
Having read all of the above criticisms, I am now troubled by a concern that I may be the only one who wants the next version of Orbiter to include a hotkey that will make the spacegrooves visible, for ease of navigation.

Do you mean a plot of the gravity field potential inside your orbit plane? :p

---------- Post added at 10:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:32 AM ----------

I got bored at work, so I sent him this:



Let you know if he replies.

If you need more ammunition, The German Observatory of Bochum has a archive full of radio tapes, on which they recorded the radio emissions of some Apollo missions by using a 20m antenna. This happened completely independent of NASA and contains also information about antenna pointing and Doppler shift.

This evidence means: At the time NASA claimed it, something was orbiting or landing on the moon (Doppler Shift, rate of change of position), which emitted exactly what NASA claimed the astronauts sent back to Earth. The tapes are identical with NASAs tapes, except that they do not contain the emissions from Earth to the spacecraft.

This was independent of NASA - The director of the observatory at that time was a good friend of Von Braun, who suggested such independent recordings.
 
Top