The "Faked NASA moon landings" thread

Pirx · Post by **Pirx** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 4:18 am

Google "evaporative cooling".. relevant link- <a href="http://www.science.ca/askascientist/viewquestion.php?qID=366">www.science.ca/askascient...hp?qID=366</a> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=pirx@rigorousintuition>Pirx</A> at: 1/6/06 1:21 am

JD · Post by JD » Fri Jan 06, 2006 5:35 am

Thanks for the input. I'm familiar with evaporative cooling. Loss of latent heat via evaporation. This is how the refridgeration cycle works. Yes your fridge does this, in a closed cycle. I take it to understand that you're suggesting they used it to cool the LEM? To evaporate it'd have to go outside the LEM OR be condensed for recycling like a refridgerator. I assume it didn't go outside the LEM. I didn't notice any vapours being issued from the LEM in any of the footage I saw. In addition packing water to the moon to evaporate into space seems very inefficient - the whole game of space travel is to keep mass low!! A more sensible heat transfer medium would be Helium. Check out a Sterling Cycle heat engine design - works very well for a number of reasons (low molecular mass being the main one!) I guess they could have run a closed refridge cycle (as I stated in my first post on the topic!) but there are some issues with it. You still would need a place to shed the heat. As a household example, on your fridge look and see the heat exchange fins on the back of it. The LEM would need the equivilent. And, I just don't see any thing like that in the equipment package. (PS - I've taken more thermodynamics courses in Chemical Engineering that I care to remember. Yuck! This is bringing up painful memories of trying to sort out entropy from enthalpy and what is constant over adiabatic valves and dozens of cycles like the Sterling Cycle....... And you thought Jeff's posts were scary..... <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/nerd.gif ALT="8o"> )

JD · Post by JD » Fri Jan 06, 2006 5:45 am

I have bounced this off other engineers for fun, at the coffee station. This is obviously a question only engineers would have fun with! Please shelve future Dilbert references after that display of humility. After some headscratching, and mumbled "dunno's"; no one I've talked to has come up with a good answer. Technical bravado melts away with comments like "that whole Apollo thing was SO impressive, those guys sure knew what they were doing! It was done somehow, can't figure it but they did it!" Of course none of us know the details of how it was done. Maybe there is some really darned clever design that was put intop the LEM thing we just don't know about. Or not! <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/pimp.gif ALT=":hat">

Pirx · Post by **Pirx** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 6:21 am

The LM vented the water to the outside, the vapor was probably not visible even if you knew where to look. (A small vent hood near one of the antennas) Nothing near as spectacular as the fabled "urine dump at sunset" recorded by Apollo crews aboard the CM. I can't recollect if they carried a fuel cell on the LM, but I would think so. Why carry water with you when you can make it as a byproduct of your power generation. Fuel cells are very clever things. The details ARE available, check out this publisher- <a href="http://www.cgpublishing.com/Space_Series.html">www.cgpublishing.com/Space_Series.html</a> "Virtual LM" by Scott Sullivan in a great place to start without getting too technical. A fun standard science question that stumps most people is "Why do we have seasons?" You be surprised how many smart folks trip up on that one.

Pirx · Post by **Pirx** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 6:47 am

Sterling engines are making a comeback. In addition to being a favorite of the the guy who invented the Segway, several robotics developers are adding them to their designs for lunar robots. Very clever devices. I think the helium aboard the LM ascent stage was used only in the reaction control systems.

scollon · Post by **scollon** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 8:02 am

The evaporation thing doesn't make any sense and is only mentioned on one website which isn't NASA. Radiation - imagine being inside a white container in Death valley for 12 hours - do you think you would get hot or would the heat radiate away ? As for the testing of Apollo. I don't believe even the American military would send two guys to the moon without testing it for real by remote control. It wasn't tested landing or taking off, in fact nothing had ever taken off from a body apart from earth. They could have because some of the Surveyor probes were remotely controlled. What is amazing is that more or less all google searches are for debunking sites with exacly the same info. Are there really all these poisonous, offensive nasty Americans out there creating websites to put down the preposterous conspiracy theories ? Their main aim seems to be to ridicule anyone who questions the official story After 9/11, the CIA had a number of similar individuals working European newspaper forums 24/7 like the Guardian (UK) spewing right wing filth. It worked very well because political internet forums are now a more or less dead phenomeon as people got fed up with the nastiness . One of the CIA guys in Holland quit and talked to the press by the way. As for the moon being in earth orbit, well so it is but only because superman put it there. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=scollon>scollon</A> at: 1/6/06 8:26 am

Et in Arcadia ego · Post by **Et in Arcadia ego** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:17 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Man, I thought this place was home to more intellectual, less emotional discussion. Oh well. Adios.<hr></blockquote> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>It's just a doggone shame when one person's reversion to crude name-calling insults spoils it for someone, making them so uncomfortable they choose to leave a forum.<hr></blockquote> scollon then defends himself with: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>After 9/11, the CIA had a number of similar individuals working European newspaper forums 24/7 like the Guardian (UK) spewing right wing filth. It worked very well because political internet forums are now a more or less dead phenomeon as people got fed up with the nastiness .<hr></blockquote> Fascinating. By the way, when were the Scott's on the Moon? I had no idea Potato Cannons shot that far.. <img src="http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/engine-potato-cannon.gif" style="border:0;"/> It's your goal to drive off as many forum members here as possible with your cheese-grater banality, isn't it? How much longer do you think that's gonna work? <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes"> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=etinarcadiaego@rigorousintuition>et in Arcadia ego</A> at: 1/6/06 9:19 am

scollon · Post by **scollon** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:37 pm

et in Arcadia ego Follow the thread or go get you Mom to explain it to you. "It's your goal to drive off as many forum members here as possible with your cheese-grater banality, isn't it? How much longer do you think that's gonna work?" Where's that Southern Cross again ?? <img src="http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/bobalien99/nesmoon3.gif" style="border:0;"/> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=scollon>scollon</A> at: 1/6/06 9:57 am

OpLan · Post by **OpLan** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:40 pm

Here is a relevant article from my favourite moon site. <a href="http://www.lunaranomalies.com/fake-moon.htm">www.lunaranomalies.com/fake-moon.htm</a> "Let us be clear; we are all uniformly,unabashedly,"conspiracy theorists" here. We are 100-percent convinced that there has been a cover up by NASA of some extraordinary discoveries made in the course of the agency's 40-year year history. That said, one thing they did not do, unquestionably, was fake the Moon landings. In fact, most of the charges made, not just by Collier and Percy, but by others who have picked up the mantle of their assertions, are so absurd, so easily discredited, so lacking in any kind of scientific analysis and just plain common sense that they give legitimate conspiracy theories -- like ours -- a bad name. Frankly, we suspect that may ultimately be the point of this whole thing after all." What is the boards thoughts on the work of Mike Bara and Steve Troy? What do you make of the images of glass domes and towers standing miles high on the moon?If they have been disproven,can you point me at the rebuttal? Should we be worried that the Clemantine data appears to have been tampered with? Does the hoax theory help or hinder the bush plan to return to the moon? Just to throw another pebble in the hoax pond,here's a little gem of a moon hoax article..if nothing else,its a great piece of Sci-Fi art.. <a href="http://www.darkplanetonline.com/crossedcircuits.html">www.darkplanetonline.com/...cuits.html</a>

scollon · Post by **scollon** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 1:17 pm

OPlan Thanks for that. I had no idea there was a giant artificial glass tower on the moon. It can only be "evidence of this prior inhabitation of the Moon". That's a much more sensible conspiracy theory altogether. Along with these Egyptian faces and buildings on Mars Mr Hoagland has seen. <a href="http://www.lunaranomalies.com/introduction_and_disclaimer.htm">www.lunaranomalies.com/in...laimer.htm</a> This page will trace an attempt at independent verification of the claims made by Richard C. Hoagland, Dr. Mark Carlotto and others concerning the presence of anomalous artificial structures on Earth's Moon. It is my position that such artificial structures do exist, based on the evidence submitted by Hoagland in May/June 1994. Specifically, I am satisfied that the "Tower" in Sinus Medii has been verified in at least 2 seperate photographic frames taken on different missions and with different camera equipment. Further, an independant team of scientists and engineers has confirmed Hoagland's findings regarding the "Tower". These two sets of data combine to corroborate the existance of the "Tower" as a real object on the lunar surface, and as such also argue it's artificiality by definition. It shall therefore be the position of the orginiators of this page that artificial lunar anomalies are present, and we are searching only to provide further evidence of this prior inhabitation of the Moon.

OpLan · Post by **OpLan** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 3:47 pm

..but lunaranomailies.com require the moon landings to be real in order for their glass towers and domes to exist.. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=oplan>OpLan</A> at: 1/6/06 12:48 pm

Et in Arcadia ego · Post by **Et in Arcadia ego** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 4:31 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>but lunaranomailies.com require the moon landings to be real in order for their glass towers and domes to exist..<hr></blockquote> Oopsie.

Pirx · Post by **Pirx** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 6:43 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>"The evaporation thing doesn't make any sense and is only mentioned on one website which isn't NASA"<hr></blockquote> Then unplug your refrigerator, it too, is a hoax. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>"imagine being inside a white container in Death valley for 12 hours - do you think you would get hot or would the heat radiate away" <hr></blockquote> I'm trying real hard to keep from imagining you, Scollon in a similar circumstance....<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"> But the answer would be both. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Are there really all these poisonous, offensive nasty Americans out there creating websites to put down the preposterous conspiracy theories ?<hr></blockquote> No. The Americans invented the internet just to annoy you personally. Really. And for making annoying links like this- <a href="http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/pc/redbut.html">sprott.physics.wisc.edu/p...edbut.html</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>people got fed up with the nastiness<hr></blockquote> Oh, the irony.....

Pirx · Post by **Pirx** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:03 pm

wow, that was truly weird, thanks OpLan. Reminds me of the auto parts found by the MER rovers. Here's a funny ripple, back at ya- <img src="http://home.usit.net/~aeromancy/post/marsmilk.jpg" style="border:0;"/>

anon · Post by **anon** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:09 pm

two points -on the non parallel shadows: would not the earth reflect sunlight onto the moon's surface? if so, would not the angle at hich that light fall onto the surface of the moon be of a different angle? for it to be the same angle, the earth and sun would have to be in line, and that would cause an eclipse... -how minute does a fake have to get? seriously. in your minds, at what level of detail would NASA have had to go in order to sell the fake? members of my family worked at a research institute that had a NASA contract to fire particles from a gas gun through samples of capsule and module material to ascertain how large a particle it could collide with and still maintain pressure. that to me is a fairly minute detail to have to undertake jsut to sell a fake landing. would not an agency only undertake such a task in order to protect the contents of a spacecraft, or was it done jsut to dot all the i and cross all the tee's to fake out russian inteligence?

rigorousintuition.ca

The "Faked NASA moon landings" thread

Re: The Dumb Engineer Still Can't Cool the LEM

Still Thermodynamically Challenged

Clever Thing?

Re: Clever Thing?

Re: Still Thermodynamically Challenged

Re: Clever Thing?

Re: Clever Thing?

Re: Clever Thing?

where does Lunaranomalies.com fit in?

Re: where does Lunaranomalies.com fit in?

Re: where does Lunaranomalies.com fit in?

Re: where does Lunaranomalies.com fit in?

Re: Clever Thing?

Re: Pebble in the hoax pond...

fwiw