NASA is going back to the moon — if it can figure out how to get there

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

It's brilliant although you destroyed him on page one so why you spent 20 pages of super-exhaustive weather analysis stuff is not clear, lol.

How log did it take you to get that stuff and put it together?

I tip my baseball hat in your general direction. Well-done.

In fact it not only destroys his work/thesis/what-have-you it makes him look like a moron. Swear n the Bible, indeed,

He should have said 'I need to find a weather guy to look this stuff over before I go off half-cocked'. But now it's clear he is 99% a-hole and 1% exposer-researcher if that.

This is the way to dismantle the moon-hoax theories not calling people stupid or making disparaging comments. You posted a link and didn't need to say ANYTHING else.

We need to dismantle all of the 'stuff' that lends a bit of a 'this is weird' aspect to these things and both sides of the argument should be fairly treated, After all it's a way to learn how to dissect things, learn some science and you don't need to shove anything down someone's throat.

a reply to: Maverick7

It's taken a looooooong time !! I've just done a major overhaul because I found a source for scans of negatives of satellite infra-red passes and I'm always on the look out for new stuff.

The weather satellite part is basically to prove that for every image of Earth taken by Apollo there are matches in the weather satellite record. Those weather satellites were free to air, anyone could get them, and they were published at the time in journals and other publications. The time the images were taken is recorded so you can prove that the images match up to when the mission timelines and transcripts say the Apollo images were taken/recorded/broadcast.

It's the smoking gun that proves it all to be genuine as far as I am concerned

I remember an article from a few years back that showed how we could get back to the moon using a modified shuttle. But we don't have any of those at the moment, either.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

You are correct uh, and I hate to be a party pooper, but it makes the claim that we went there and did a Trans-Lunar-Insertion seem very robust.

It does not, unfortunately address the LEM the 'landing' and the rendezvous with the command module part.

I can't put my finger on it and this is 'indirect' I hesitate to say 'evidence to the contrary', but even Buzz said in one interview that the part that really made them nervous was the rendezvous and docking with the CM with the LEM.

He said in truth there was a 1 in 20 chance that that might succeed. Don't ask me for a reference, but I've heard it was much less than that from two sources. One was an Encyclopedia Brittanica documentary of that operation (Rendezvous and Docking) that it was about a 0.025% at the time (I think it was in the 1967 phase of the build up) in that mission-critical element and the narrator said this:

"NASA has a parameter that they will scrub any mission that does not have an over-all success rate of over 80% when the probabilities are all calculated out and they hope to improve this part which is going to be the most difficult part", or words to that effect

It made the chance of doing the Apollo 11 mission something in the neighborhood of 1 in 200 chance of succeeding. NASA despite all their confidence would never do that mission.

When I went back and looked at that statement and then saw the size of the ascent engine (which is tiny), and realized that it had to take the top part of the LEM to an altitude of 60 miles up and reach a rendezvous speed of about 3500 mph, the non-engineer me (admittedly) said 'that doesn't sound even plausible,

For one thing why would the descent engine be BIGGER than the ASCENT engine? The descent did have a 'heavier' package but it wasn't fighting gravity, the ascent was fighting 1/6 th Earth gravity and needing to accelerate from a dead stop to 3500mph and 60 miles.

But your analysis gives great credence to all the parts up to that, including the TLI.

Thanks for sharing your process.

a reply to: stonerwilliam

Who mentioned Bart?

Still enjoy when Aldrin punched this clown out .........

a reply to: Blue Shift

I remember an article from a few years back that showed how we could get back to the moon using a modified shuttle. But we don't have any of those at the moment, either.

Actially have the hardware now to do circumlunar and even Lunar orbit, aka Apollo 8, in form of Space X Falcon Heavy and Dragon spacecraft

But what would be point of wasting 1 billion $ ........

a reply to: Maverick7

Actually performed LEM - CM rendezvous 7 out of 7 times

6 landing (Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17) and Apollo 10 practice mission

Buzz may have been little pessimiss about process

As why Descent stage needed larger engine (10,500 lb, throttable 10-90% power ) was that was hauling more weight
Had to carry both fully fueled descent and ascent stages from lunar orbit to surface

Had to have suffiecent fuel resources to scout out alternate landing sites as Apollo 11 did when automatic landing system
was taking it down in boulder field

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: stonerwilliam

Who mentioned Bart?

Still enjoy when Aldrin punched this clown out .........

What clown and who mentioned Bart

originally posted by: Maverick7
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

You are correct uh, and I hate to be a party pooper, but it makes the claim that we went there and did a Trans-Lunar-Insertion seem very robust.

It does not, unfortunately address the LEM the 'landing' and the rendezvous with the command module part.

In later sections I cover images taken at the same time from lunar orbit and from the surface, as well as images of Earth taken during rendez-vous in lunar orbit and the journey home, so I go way beyond just the first part of the Apollo 11 mission, not to mention the Earth images from every other Apollo mission.

There are other sections of my site that deal with surface imagery in terms of matching features (not just the hardware) in them with photos taken by the LRO, Chang'e-2, Kaguya and Chandrayaan. I also look at the topographic data from those probes and compare them with views taken by Apollo on the surface using reconstructed 3D models, the development of the missions as recorded by the Panoramic Camera in orbit, an examination of the stars that Apollo did photograph as part of the mission profile, and plotted every photo taken in lunar orbit (barring a few revs from Apollo 16's Metric Mapping Camera that I'm still working on, the progression of shadows as the missions progressed and a detailed examination of Apollo 8's Earthrise.

Right now I am looking at very detailed images taken by Apollo 14's Hycon camera from orbit that show details that rival the LROs that were not known about before the mission. That camera failed, and the details of that failure as recorded in the transcript match exactly with what you see in the images.

There are no questions to answer as far as I'm concerned.

originally posted by: firerescue
But what would be point of wasting 1 billion $ ........

Well, I suppose it might be worth it to mine the Helium-3 at the poles. If we had working commercial fusion reactors. Which we don't.

a reply to: Maverick7

Watched Percy before but someone who claims to be an expert re photography and can't work out why stars dont show well what can I say. What YT video there are loads of them

a reply to: Blue Shift

Yes that was 'Project Aquilla' and Project Starbooster:

buzzaldrin.com...

Which was a ridiculous notion of building a 'Heavy Lifter' system to mind Helium-3 and Heavy Hydrogen from the Moon.

It's ridicules because the shear forces on such a monstrosity at launch would have been FAR beyond any man-made materials ever invented. You're talking about a 270 to 300 foot tall tri-missle assemblage (see the link for a pic).

I have not researched the project but I think they planned to 'build it' on the Moon near the North Pole region and then some scheme to house it at a secret space station at a much higher orbit (Legrange point?).

Anyway, I don't know much but suspect that's it.

a reply to: wmd_2008

Posted it earlier in the thread on page 7.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thanks. Are you an engineer or a photographer or what is your background. That sounds like an excellent way to answer those questions,

I would not go so far as to say something like 'well NASA could have cut and paste the right Earth pic' lol.

Good deal

a reply to: firerescue

Well, by the book NASA has about 10+ missions in the Space Exploration Hall of Fame.

Pioneer
Voyager
WMAP
Spitzer
Spirit and Opportunity
Cassini-Huygens
Chandra
Viking
Hubble
Hubble repair
Apollo

Some of those are spectacularly good.

But uh, this might sound silly but nobody questions any of those (except a few people who doubt there are rovers on Mars, but they're a tiny few).

I'm not doing argument by elimination here.

You could certainly make a case that NASA is the most successful super-complex missions record of anything ever done by mankind.

I suppose the closest next competitor of this age of exploration was the Lockheed-Martin Skunkworks guys, Kelly Johnson, Ben Rich and the guys with the SR, F-117, B-2, others. Heck they enabling created stealth and radar targeted bombing.

By contrast the military has had it's share of questionable stuff.

If you had to compare the absolutely stellar record of perfection, (barring the Grissom incident and losing Grissom's capsule) to every other accomplishment of the modern age, they are a 100 and everyone else is down in the single digits except Lockheed-Martin's work.

So you might make a quibble about it being too perfect to be believed. Even Apollo 13 was an amazing success, b.c they got back alive.

But let's back off a little bit and look at the L-M Skunkworks guys and the Air Force in general.

They had a very big set of losses. Crashed SR-71,eight of those SR-71 drones crashed some due to things like a stripped bolt. Crashed F-117, B-2, one crashed on Guam in 2008 and one is stuck there due to a fire, innumerable test pilots killed due to various things, the F-22 fiasco, and a big long list of things on the Air Force.

Of course their challenges were in a sense more immediate and high risk due to them being war-based endeavors or edge of the envelope tasks all the time.

But the number 1 guy on the list is NASA and had very few of these catastrophes cost-overruns, blunders and coverups,

Of the 20 B-2s 11 are down most of the time.

So let's just give them that and say that NASA stands for 'Never A Serious Accident' but one.

I think due to people like you we will soon know how stellar they have been and EVEN IF the Apollo Missions had some fudging going on they too were successful in that it took a lot of build up to do what we know they did and this was the base that launched the others on that list above. So they can actually be forgiven of most anything, IMO.

a reply to: Maverick7

I do have a background in construction engineering but my hobby for almost 40 years has been photography.

Ok a quick example using a mirror as the visor the light in my room as the Sun.

I put a lens cap on the mirror if I focus on it the reflection of the light is out of focus basic physics the light image in the mirror appears as far behind the mirror as it's in front of it.

The lens cap represents the distance to the Astronauts visor when I focus on that this is the image of the bulb is out of focus and looks blurred and larger.



Now if I focus on the reflection of the bulb in the mirror it's not blurred and is smaller than it lookedin the first image.



Here are the 2 images merged so you can see the difference in bulb size, now this does not take into account different cameras/lenses etc or distortion if the light hits the curve of the visor.



An out of focus highlight will look bigger next time you watch tv or a film and a light is out of focus look how the light seems bigger.

a reply to: Maverick7

You mean like one of these

upload.wikimedia.org...

Space X Falcon Heavy

Stands 70 meters 230 feet

a reply to: firerescue

Well not exactly. The Buzz version of the SpaceMonstrosity is like that but with the big section inside placed on either end, and the little part in the middle...nope that's wrong it's two shuttles with a heavy payload in the middle with probably some kind of rocketry. My bad. See below.

If the SpaceX already exists and can launch from Earth (has it?) then why have the Starbooster - he says that the shuttle itself is robust and the redesign need to the the belly tank and the drop off boosters. In fact their claim is that the big red belly tank would hold heavy helium, or 3-He.

Since we don't have a working fusion reactor, which 3-He would be in, what'w the rush?

Those boosters on the side of the SpaceX would presumably be like the Shuttle drop off rocket boosters, and then the slim, lean and mean center section doing it's 'lift' thing. Again I have not studied the SpaceX at all,.

buzzaldrin.com...

I don't think those dual shuttles are designed to drop off. But the 'Buzz is' this will be assembled on the Moon and then parts of it kept at the secret space commando space station which is now at the Earth-Moon Lagrange point or something like that.

It 'look the same' to me, but admittedly have not seen the specs, but IMO, not a rocket scientist looks like a 'torque/strain' fracture on lift off waiting to happen. YMMV.


Again according to the Lunacy-squad, this already exists (The StarBooster™)

What's your take on that construction?

a reply to: Maverick7

If the SpaceX already exists and can launch from Earth (has it?) then why have the Starbooster - he says that the shuttle itself is robust and the redesign need to the the belly tank and the drop off boosters. In fact their claim is that the big red belly tank would hold heavy helium, or 3-He.

Falcon Heavy test launch

www.youtube.com...

Next one scheduled January 2019

originally posted by: stonerwilliam


Maybe this or has this been debunked

It's been thoroughly debunked. Evidently Sibrel accidentally edited out the parts of the video that prove conclusively that he was lying.

www.youtube.com...