Whould you get in this if I told you it goes to the moon?

a reply to: Iamnotadoctor

I apologise for the misspelling/typo.

I have corrected it.

Thank you.

You seem to be coming from a position of intense ignorance, which is very, very cringeworthy.

a reply to: Iamnotadoctor


I could say the same to you.

I'm just not as rude.

a reply to: ProfessorPatternfish

I too challenge the credibility of everything that these people have said they have done.

I have my own doubts based on the fact that I know humans are deceitful egotistical lying bastards and that alone leads me to question everything.

Keep asking questions.

Feel free to enlighten us with the answer to a question I've been posing to another reality denier for months and who has yet to come up with any kind of answer:

What evidence can you provide that it was not capable of doing the job for which it was designed?

You can even answer another question: Given that there are photos from the mission that show the LM with Earth in the background showing a unique time and date signature specific to the time and date on which the photograph was taken and verified by satellite meteorology, where exactly do you think that LM was?

Then you would have missed out on one hell of a ride and an experience almost no one else has had.

a reply to: onequestion

Who is they? NASA? Last time I checked, THEY chose the cameras.

Your on par with the OP at least..

originally posted by: ProfessorPatternfish
Did you know Neil Armstrong the first man on the moon, has given hardly any interviews about his time on the moon.


He is wheeled out when needed to make a quote.

If you really went to the Moon you would be on every TV channel going on and on about it.

You wouldn't be able to shut up about it.

Ever.

He doesn't remember seeing anything, possibly because the aliens used a little flashing device that scrambled his memory. That or he was havening severe panicky attacks after traveling through airless space and after hyperventilating the whole time, couldn't focus on seeing the stars. Space is a spooky place.

The LM was designed to work in the vacuum of space, and to land in the very weak gravity of the Moon. That's why it could afford being so lightweight.

I saw a full-sized LM model in London's Science Museum, and I was impressed. It's almost the size of a small house. The compartment where the astronauts were was basically a metallic cylinder. It's the peripherals attached to it that give LM a rickety impression.

Are you saying that the engineers had no clue about how strong and sturdy a lunar module would have to be?

Here's a rickety-looking thing taking off and landing back down - in full Earth gravity and in atmosphere:


www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Feel free to enlighten us with the answer to a question I've been posing to another reality denier for months and who has yet to come up with any kind of answer:

What evidence can you provide that it was not capable of doing the job for which it was designed?

You can even answer another question: Given that there are photos from the mission that show the LM with Earth in the background showing a unique time and date signature specific to the time and date on which the photograph was taken and verified by satellite meteorology, where exactly do you think that LM was?

I am just saying.

There is no way I would get in this thing to take a dump, let alone get in it to try and get to the moon.

Forgive me but I find it laughable.

The lander was inside the rocket during the trip to the moon....it obviously had to be made as light as possible. So...yes it looks flimsy and I am sure to a certain extent it was flimsy. But it was sufficient for it's part of the mission.

In reality the fact that it looks the way it does only adds credibility to the fact that the mission was real... If they were trying to "fool" the non thinking masses. They would have mocked up something that looked sturdy and streamlined. But the people that put some thought into it realize why it looks the way it does. They probably didnt bring any cast iron cookware with them either...just saying.

Btw...If the astronauts were sitting around a campfire roasting marshmallows ...you would have good reason to doubt....although that would make a great photoshop picture

originally posted by: ProfessorPatternfish

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Feel free to enlighten us with the answer to a question I've been posing to another reality denier for months and who has yet to come up with any kind of answer:

What evidence can you provide that it was not capable of doing the job for which it was designed?

You can even answer another question: Given that there are photos from the mission that show the LM with Earth in the background showing a unique time and date signature specific to the time and date on which the photograph was taken and verified by satellite meteorology, where exactly do you think that LM was?

I am just saying.

There is no way I would get in this thing to take a dump, let alone get in it to try and get to the moon.

Forgive me but I find it laughable.

Somehow I don't think NASA would have picked you to be one of the people for the job.

a reply to: ProfessorPatternfish

That's purely your opinion.

And your opinion proves nothing.

Are you ignoring my soil samples post?

That alone debunks any kind of lunar fakery.

a reply to: ProfessorPatternfish

Oh dear, someone else who doesn't understand how to answer questions.

For the record, I wouldn't get into it either, but then I'm not a military grade test pilot with balls of steel dedicated to doing a job. That's a slightly different take on it to yours.

Feel free to laugh, but the Apollo moonwalkers I've met slightly have more credibility than you do and I'll take their opinion over whether it was up to the job over yours any day.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: ProfessorPatternfish

Oh dear, someone else who doesn't understand how to answer questions.

For the record, I wouldn't get into it either, but then I'm not a military grade test pilot with balls of steel dedicated to doing a job. That's a slightly different take on it to yours.

Feel free to laugh, but the Apollo moonwalkers I've met slightly have more credibility than you do and I'll take their opinion over whether it was up to the job over yours any day.

That is entirely your proactive.

I have the balls to go to the moon.

Just not in this egg box.

a reply to: ProfessorPatternfish

Don't forget, the LM only flew in space. It never needed to fly through a thick atmosphere, so it doesn't need to be streamlined or aerodynamic. With weight/mass being a vital consideration all of the extraneous (heavy) parts of the design that would usually be required to be able to withstand atmospheric forces had been stripped away -- which in turn means it can look very odd indeed,

The complete LM may look odd, but the basic concept of it is simple.

A pressurized crew cabin with an engine and small control thrusters and round tanks(the ascent stage):


connected to the top of a set of legs and engine (the descent stage) as shown in this model:

All the rest of that foil, fiberboard, and tape is just insulation, and is not really the "business end" of the LM. The LM is basically a crew cabin on legs.


You can see in this other image of the ascent stage/crew cabin (below) The ascent module looks to be of relatively strong design, with the crew cabin being in a cylindrical pressure vessel (the drum-shaped part in the middle of the picture of the ascent stage below). The other pieces (the metal on the right) are simply shrouds covering the tanks and such, and the other pieces to the left of the crew cabin drum is the hatch and windows (the windows are temporarily covered with silvery tape or something):

And, like I said, the descent stage is a platform on legs. It may be hard to see that it is just a platform on legs while looking at all of the foil insulation, so here is a picture of an unused LM (with BOTH the ascent stage and the descent stage still together) on display at the Franklin institute in Philadelphia that is devoid of the usual foil insulation. This LM was built to be used for the cancelled Apollo 19 mission:

a reply to: ProfessorPatternfish

depends what the the speakers are like, no Bass then no journey

originally posted by: lSkrewloosel
a reply to: ProfessorPatternfish

depends what the the speakers are like, no Bass then no journey

I'm sure if you turned the bass up to much this 'space craft' would blow apart.

originally posted by: ProfessorPatternfish
I have the balls to go to the moon.

Just not in this egg box.

doesnt look like you do..

the ascent module weighs 2150kg (dry)

the average car weighs 1500kg.. are you afraid to drive??
an average cessna 152 weighs 490kg and can safely fly 2 people.. that would scare the living beejeesus out of you.

originally posted by: choos

the average car weighs 1500kg.. are you afraid to drive??
an average cessna 152 weighs 490kg and can safely fly 2 people.. that would scare the living beejeesus out of you.

Especially considering that the part of the plane that "flies" (provides lift) are the wings.

So in your Cessna example, the passenger compartment is simply a box people sit in that is being tugged up into the air by the wings.

a reply to: ProfessorPatternfish

Just accept that we went to the Moon because it darn well happened!

You do realize that material characteristics/craft design tolerances differ somewhat regarding a vacuum environment and the fact that our moon has only 5/6 the gravity of Earth as apposed to a craft designed to function in an atmosphere and under Earth gravity?