An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

Dude, obviously the flag is supported. Uh, what does that have to do with anything?

I am talking about the fact that when the astronauts move it, it flutters. There has to be an atmosphere for something to flutter. Look it up.

No there doesn't. That pole through the flag is the reason why it waves. NOT an atmosphere. When they let go the pole continues to move from the momentum they gave it when they put it into the ground.

Of course a flag can wave in a vacuum. In the shot of the astronaut and the flag, the astronaut is rotating the pole on which the flag is mounted, trying to get it to stay up. The flag is mounted on one side on the pole, and along the top by another pole that sticks out to the side. In a vacuum or not, when you whip around the vertical pole, the flag will ``wave'', since it is attached at the top. The top will move first, then the cloth will follow along in a wave that moves down. This isn't air that is moving the flag, it's the cloth itself.

The flag hangs from a horizontal rod which telescopes out from the vertical one. In Apollo 11, they couldn't get the rod to extend completely, so the flag didn't get stretched fully. It has a ripple in it, like a curtain that is not fully closed. In later flights, the astronauts didn't fully deploy it on purpose because they liked the way it looked. In other words, the flag looks like it is waving because the astronauts wanted it to look that way. Ironically, they did their job too well. It appears to have fooled a lot of people into thinking it waved.

www.badastronomy.com...

There are two explanations as to how it "waved" when they put it up. Another good point brought up on that page. If the "wind" is strong enough to wave the flag, why doesn't any dust blow around?

reply to post by Zaphod58


Because there was no "wind". They obviously didn't film it outside. There is an atmosphere, thus the flag ripples when it is moved.

Believe the bad astronomer rather than science and your own two eyes if you want though on that front.

You also think people can pass through the Van Allan Belt successfully?

Don't bother answering. Obviously there are official responses to all of the obvious discrepancies, and I really don't want to do this whole dance. We both know both sides of the argument; you choose to take authority as truth, I choose to take truth as authority.

Originally posted by _bigbrain_
What can you simulate with a mock LM suspended to that biggest crane?

1/6th Gravity.

You can't test if LM is able to keep vertical position and land going backwards.

You're right, you can't. The Lunar Landing Research Facility wasn't built to do that. It's just a simulator for the astronauts.

Which capabilities can you learn held by cables?

You can get a rough idea of what it's like to control something in 1/6th gravity.

Originally posted by Wilsonfrisk
I didn't read much of this thread

I urge you to do so.

but just wanted to note - the flag was waving. Without going into the vast array of other obvious discrepancies, is that not the end of the discussion?

Hardly. It has been brought up so many times in this thread alone. The flag only "waved" when the astronauts were twisting the pole into the Moon. Otherwise the flag stayed still. But as Zaphod mentioned. There was also a pole that ran horizontally across the top of the flag to keep it propped up.

Unless someone believes there is a conspiracy to make us believe their is no air on the moon...

Umm... there is no air on the Moon... That's not a conspiracy, it's a fact.

However, for it to wave when the astronaut was touching it, there would have to be an atmosphere. things don't move around like that in a vacuum. That is physics.

What?! A flag will move if force is applied to it or the flag pole. It's called 'cause and effect'.

Originally posted by jra

Unless someone believes there is a conspiracy to make us believe their is no air on the moon...

Umm... there is no air on the Moon... That's not a conspiracy, it's a fact.

Read that sentence again. I think you misunderstood.

However, for it to wave when the astronaut was touching it, there would have to be an atmosphere. things don't move around like that in a vacuum. That is physics.

What?! A flag will move if force is applied to it or the flag pole. It's called 'cause and effect'.

Yes, things move in space. However they do not flutter. That requires an atmosphere.

Clearly there was no wind in the building at the time of the filming. There was air.

Here's some actual video of the flag:

www.youtube.com...

The bottom most right unsupported corner swings back and forth like a pendulum, just as it should. There is not fluttering.

reply to post by nataylor


I don't see how you watched that video and can say there's no fluttering. Clearly there is.

Here is an up close examination of the movement of the flag, where it moves before the astronaut walks by it. Please be the bad astronomer and tell me it's from static electricity, just so everyone can see exactly where you're coming from.

I don't see any fluttering. The corner is swinging, that's all I see. Luckily, we'll get to see how such a flag behaves in a vacuum on an upcoming episode of Mythbusters.

Originally posted by nataylor
I don't see any fluttering. The corner is swinging, that's all I see. Luckily, we'll get to see how such a flag behaves in a vacuum on an upcoming episode of Mythbusters.

Hahahahaha. I bet you just believe it all, don't you?

Yes, I do. I haven't seen a shred of evidence that would lead me to believe anything else.

In case anyone else was wondering what the flag was made of:

ston.jsc.nasa.gov...
A 3 x 5 ft. nylon flag, obtained through the government supply catalog[10], was altered by sewing a hem along the top. The crossbar, hinged to the pole, went through this hem, and a loop sewn around the bottom of the flag secured it to the pole. An astronaut would unfurl the flag by extending the telescoping crossbar and by raising it first to a position just above 90 degrees. He then lowered it to a position perpendicular to the pole where a catch prevented the hinge from moving. The upper portion then slipped into the base portion of the flagpole, which had been driven into the ground using a lunar geological hammer. A red ring was painted around the base of the assembly 18 inches from the bottom to aid the astronauts in judging the distance that the pole had penetrated the surface.[11]

Flag Sketch

$5.50 Flag and assembly

history.nasa.gov...
The only design change made as the result of performance on the lunar surface was in the catching mechanism of the horizontal crossbar's hinge. The Apollo 12 crew could not get the catch to latch properly and, as a result, the flag drooped slightly. Later models of the flag assembly had a double-action latch that would work even if the horizontal bar was not raised above a 90 degree angle.

A few thoughts:

Could this faulty latch have contributed, not only 'droop' but instability and possible movement, as well?
The timing would seem unlikely.....But possible?

How about surface vibration from the jumping astronaut, as a cause for the slight movement at the start? or making the hinge slip?

Anyone have a cite on the distance from the astronaut to the flag, in that clip?


[edit on 18-3-2008 by Jbird]

No, it was static electricity.

Originally posted by Wilsonfrisk
reply to post by nataylor

 

I don't see how you watched that video and can say there's no fluttering. Clearly there is.

The only times I see the flag doing something that one may describe as "fluttering" is when the pole is being moved by an astronaut -- hence the reason for the flag "fluttering". I would expect the flag to look like it's fluttering when the astronaut is moving it -- even on the Moon.
The only other movement I see is the oscillation back and forth of the bottom of the flag, which was easily explained by comparing the bottom of the flag to a pendulum, just as nataylor said. The flag is being held at the top by the hotizontal barand the left side by the flagpole, but the bottom right corner is free to swing. It swung like a pendulum because it still had kinetic energy from being moved by the astronaut. Once the pendulum-like oscillation dampend, the flag stood perfectly still.

I would say the flag acted exactly like that particular flag should in a vacuum...I see nothing odd in that video.

[edit on 3/18/2008 by Soylent Green Is People]

Originally posted by Wilsonfrisk
reply to post by nataylor

 

I don't see how you watched that video and can say there's no fluttering. Clearly there is.

Here is an up close examination of the movement of the flag, where it moves before the astronaut walks by it. Please be the bad astronomer and tell me it's from static electricity, just so everyone can see exactly where you're coming from.

Or it could be because the astronaut is bouncing on the ground sending shockwaves up through the flagpole... Jump up and down bouncing right past your desk and you can get things on your desk to move too. Now imagine how much easier it would be to cause a small piece of cloth to move on a fairly long lever arm that's been hammered into the ground.

Originally posted by Wilsonfrisk

You also think people can pass through the Van Allan Belt successfully?

Don't bother answering...

Oh but you brought it up, why not address it again for the dozenth time on this thread? You think people can't pass through the Van Allen Belt safely? I guess that makes you more of an expert on radiation than Dr. James Van Allen himself (despite not being able to spell his name correctly). Dr. Van Allen, who predicted the existence of the belts before we could even detect them, has said himself that they are not a threat to astronauts who are just passing through them. Of course, the charged particles that the belt traps are forms of particle radiation, which is shielded by light metals and fibrous materials better than by heavy metals. Naturally, the Apollo command module has a thin aluminum skin and fibrous insulation between the astronauts and the "deadly radiation of space." If you're going to claim that this wasn't enough to protect them, prove it.

[edit on 18-3-2008 by ngchunter]

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
...
and as jra and others have pointed out time after time on this thread, that gantry at Langley was only one tool they used to train the astronauts in simulated 1/6 gravity (lower gravity simulated by wires and pulleys).
...

To simulate 1/6 gravity it would be enough to get on a carousel.

Your answers are ludicrous.

Kennedy in 1961 said USA had to go to the Moon within 1970.

I also could say: within one year I will fly with the wings as Icarus.

But nobody will give me the wings because my enterprise is impossible.

In 1963-64 NASA engineers thought they would be able to build a rocket capable to land going backwards and built Langley crane to test Lunar Lander.

We have no videos and not even pictures that show any Lander suspended from the crane with the alight engine because that was an impossible enterprise.

This is a "real" Lunar Lander but we don't see Armstrong while flying it:

Originally posted by _bigbrain_
To simulate 1/6 gravity it would be enough to get on a carousel.

Huh??

In 1963-64 NASA engineers thought they would be able to build a rocket capable to land going backwards and built Langley crane to test Lunar Lander.

As I said to you months ago in one of your past (banned) lives, the purpose of the LLRF was not to test the Lunar Lander, but it was a simulator to help train the astronauts to fly the real Lunar Lander, plus test various procedures and details involved with landing on the Moon.

We have no videos and not even pictures that show any Lander suspended from the crane with the alight engine because that was an impossible enterprise.

This is a "real" Lunar Lander but we don't see Armstrong while flying it:

What exactly makes the simulator at the LLRF an "Impossible Enterprise". We know that the LLRV and LLTV worked just fine, so why not this simulator?

You may have seen pictures with the engines "lit", but since the peroxide monopropellant used for the simulators atitude control engines was invisible, you may have not noticed.

And by the way, that photo is NOT a photo of the "real" Lunar Lander as you called it -- it is part of the simulator at Langley. Please get it straight...the real lunar lander was not designed to operate in Earth's gravity, so it was tested in space. The LLRF simulator, the LLRV, and the LLTV were all TRAINING vehicles and vehicles used to test landing procedures -- they were NOT Lunar Lander test vehicles.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
...
the real lunar lander was not designed to operate in Earth's gravity, so it was tested in space.
...

www.astronautix.com...

After Stafford's camera failed, he and Cernan had little to do except look at the scenery until time to dump the descent stage. Stafford had the vehicle in the right attitude 10 minutes early. Cernan asked, "You ready?" Then he suddenly exclaimed, "Son of a bitch!" Snoopy seemed to be throwing a fit, lurching wildly about. He later said it was like flying an Immelmann turn in an aircraft, a combination of pitch and yaw. Stafford yelled that they were in gimbal lock - that the engine had swiveled over to a stop and stuck - and they almost were. He called out for Cernan to thrust forward. Stafford then hit the switch to get rid of the descent stage and realized they were 30 degrees off from their previous attitude. The lunar module continued its crazy gyrations across the lunar sky, and a warning light indicated that the inertial measuring unit really was about to reach its limits and go into gimbal lock.
Stafford then took over in manual control, made a big pitch maneuver, and started working the attitude control switches. Snoopy finally CALMED DOWN.

How was that possible?

Lunar Module had a refined computer guidance system that updated position and velocity by integrating information received from the motion sensors.

Without computer it was impossible to keep LEM vertical and to land it going backwards.

How could Stafford fly LEM in manual control without computer?

It was impossible.

Nobody would go and land on the Moon without testing LEM on the Earth.
LLRV and LLRT are totally different from LEM.

You can't learn roller-skating going on the bike.

[edit on 19-3-2008 by _bigbrain_]

Originally posted by _bigbrain_
...Lunar Module had a refined computer guidance system that updated position and velocity by integrating information received from the motion sensors.

Without computer it was impossible to keep LEM vertical and to land it going backwards.

How could Stafford fly LEM in manual control without computer?

It was impossible.

First of all, the event you describe happened to Apollo 10, which never landed on the Moon -- it was just a test run. So he didn't have to land it going backwards.

Secondly, it was not impossible to fly the LEM the way Stafford did with Apollo 10. He may have taken over manual control of the stick, but that doesn't mean the computers were not still providing automatic attitude control by firing the attitude control thrusters as necessary. Stafford had manual control, but attitude control was still being provide by the computer.

Same thing with Apollo 11 when its landing computer had to be turned off because it was being overloaded with too much radar information. In that case, Armstrong taking manual control over where they would land is not the same as saying that the computer was not still directing the attitude control thrusters. Attitude control thrusters in both cases -- Apollo 10 and Apollo 11 -- were still keeping the LEM flying level automatically while the astronaut had "manual control" of the LEM.

This is like the pilot of a modern jet fighter having "manual control" of the plane, but the control surfaces are still being automatically adjusted by the flight computer 100's of times per second. In modern jet aircraft, even after a pilot shuts off the "auto-pilot" and takes manual control, the control computer is still helping to keep the plane in the air.

Originally posted by _bigbrain_Nobody would go and land on the Moon without testing LEM on the Earth.
LLRV and LLRT are totally different from LEM.

You can't learn to go on a bike doing roller-skating.

It would be impossible to test the actual LEM on Earth -- the LEM does not work in Earth's gravity.

Most space probes and satellites are not tested on Earth in their fully-built final form, but they are still sent into space anyway and work fine. Why aren't you complaining that the Cassini probe that went to Saturn or the Voyager space probes weren't "test flown" here on Earth? Their component parts were tested, but there is no way to test fly the fully-built finished product in Earth's gravity.

If what you're trying to say is that you can't learn to fly the actual LEM without learning in an actual flying LEM, then answer me this -- how do the Space Shuttle Astronauts learn how to pilot the Space Shuttle? Space Shuttle pilots don't learn by taking a spare shuttle out for a spin. They learn in simulators on the ground and this plane, which is built to have the same flight characteristics as the shuttle:
Shuttle Training Aircraft
The first time a shuttle pilot is flying a shuttle on a space mission is the first time he's EVER piloted a real shuttle PERIOD.

[edit on 3/19/2008 by Soylent Green Is People]

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
...
how do the Space Shuttle Astronauts learn how to pilot the Space Shuttle? Space Shuttle pilots don't learn by taking a spare shuttle out for a spin. They learn in simulators on the ground and this plane, which is built to have the same flight characteristics as the shuttle...
The first time a shuttle pilot is flying a shuttle on a space mission is the first time he's EVER piloted a real shuttle PERIOD.

You are right but the Shuttle is not a rocket that must land going backwards. Space Shuttle is a plane and lands like planes. And today we have not computers with 32k RAM.

Why did they build that biggest crane?
To test this "real" lander:




but there is no video out there that shows this lander flying.

This picture is only a fraud to swindle people that think: "Oh, look at Armstrong. He has just flown that lander".

But instead Lunar Landers technology in 2007 is this:

youtube.com...

And this unmanned lander is more and more easy to fly because it's light and radio controlled staying outside.

Imagine you are piloting inside the rocket. You can't react in time because you can't see where you are falling down.