I like velcro and used to drink Tang, but about the moon, was NASA really full of horseshit?

hedgeless_horseman's picture

 

I remember being home on leave from Vietnam and watching the President on television.
He was telling Americans that US forces were not operating in Cambodia.
The US Army had taught me well how to use a compass and a map.
I had just been operating in Cambodia for many weeks.

-A veteran friend of mine
that doesn't live in a multi-million dollar house
and doesn't get big-fat government checks

 

There are many conspiracy theories about the moon landing, but this article deals only with mine, personally, which is a math problem I need your help to solve. We have some smart people on zerohedge, and access to much better computers than they had in the 60's.  We should be able to do the math.

I have sat in a Lunar Lander, a few years back in Houston, before NASA hung it way up high on the ceiling, where you cannot get close to it. 

It is tiny, especially considering that it is a two-stage space craft, with two separate and complete engines.

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LM09_Main_Propulsion_ppMP1-22.pdf

The lower stage, below the landing legs' top attachment points, is covered in foil (why foil I do not know).  It houses one of the Lunar Lander's two main rocket engines and the fuel to decelerate the spacecraft from orbital speed (____velocity), and then to land the space craft and its payload (____ mass) gently on the moon without injuring or killing the two government workers inside, unlike these objects.

The upper stage, housing the two aforementioned government workers, also contains a second complete rocket engine, and its fuel, (____ mass).  It separates from the lower stage and accelerates back up into lunar orbit.

I examined the size of the ascent and descent engines, as well as the size of the alleged fuel storage.  It seemed to both me and my kids, intuitively, to be less than credible, even considering that the moon's gravity is 1/6 of the Earth.  Our doubts were reinforced by the massive size of the Saturn V rocket on display, which is described as a giant flying fuel tank.

The size of the lunar lander is of course limited by the fact that they had to fit it in the top of a Saturn V rocket and get it into orbit, along with the Command Capsule and Service Module.

I will concede the fact that they got it up into Earth orbit.  Sure.  There were plenty of eye witnesses at Cape Kennedy.

But down to the moon's surface, landing soft enough to not injure or kill the astronauts, and then back up into lunar orbit?  Come on!  What was Kennedy thinking?  There is no atmosphere on the moon to brake against.  That requires a lot of fuel.  No?  The little toy-sized Mars Rovers supposedly bounced along forever even with an atmosphere, parachute, and retro rockets.

Here is the math problem:

How much fuel, really, and how big would the fuel storage really need to be, for each of the two lunar lander stages ____ cm2?   Do these amounts really fit into the space of the fuel vessels shown here

Remember, there is no margin for error, as there are two lives at stake, and the credibility of the United States government.  Show your work. 

Unfortunately, we really need to do this math, because NASA erased or lost the original film from the surface of the moon, so we cannot use modern analysis on the original high-resolution 2 1/4" negatives, and the eye-witness government workers that allegedly landed on the moon cannot be trusted, considering that they all live in multi-million dollar homes (I have personally been in one in the foothills of Colorado SW of Denver) and they have received big-fat government paychecks over the last 50+ years, not to mention their credibility as people.  

Also, nobody has landed a man softly on the moon and returned him, again, in almost 50 years, with much better technology. What do we call a scientific experiment that is not repeatable by others?

Finally, the amazing Hubble space telescope that is really just a re-purposed spy satellite, is supposedly unable to see the objects that we allegedly left on the moon, like the moon car, but yet we can read the license plate of cars on Earth, through a thick atmosphere.

Any takers that are not NASA employees?  I will trust a Wall Street quant before I trust a government employee.  It's not like this is rocket science.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
detached.amusement's picture

lol...you're going to have to do one hell of a lot better qualifying that one

 

sounds like you failed stoichiometry, too

 

that's kinda like saying 911 flames were x degrees ergo the metal was x degrees and jeez that's above its failing point ergo jet fuel melts steel.

 

FAILURE.

Lumberjack's picture

I hope they give us some stock tips..../s

peddling-fiction's picture

@Jack Shill

Stock tip: get the f*ck out of this market that has been rigged by the same deceivers that peddle space travel to us.

Lumberjack's picture

EAT ME! This is just today.

 

Total $1,276,660.60 $37,225.60(3.00 %) $136,805.40 (12.00 %)

Today so far was a $264K haul....and the markets aren't closed. FUCK YOU HEDGELESS ET.AL. To the Moon....

 

 

 

I LIKE NANEX

peddling-fiction's picture

Solar panels will not withstand 726 Celsius. Not even close.

You need to allow the sunlight in and they cannot be protected.

Do you have brainrot you weasel of a shill?

 

detached.amusement's picture

You could have simply admitted the stoichiometry bit flew completely over your head.

 

 

So jet fuel melts steel?  LMAO

 

 

cmon man, keep diggin!  you'll hit china soon at this rate!

peddling-fiction's picture

Keep deflecting Shillsky. You make no sense and don´t address the issues.

detached.amusement's picture

ahahahahahaha.....oh but it does make perfect complete sense - you just havent quite hit that "oh shit I missed something HUGELY IMPORTANT in my calculus" moment yet.

 

cmon....you dont realize WHY what you asserted is equivalent to saying jet fuel melts steel beams????

 

hahahaha.  I dont think either of you are deserving of the title "engineer."

peddling-fiction's picture

Show how stoichiometry proves that ISS´s solar panels can survive 726 degrees Celsius at its Thermosphere orbit.

That is the issue, you deflecting shill.

Answer that, or I will ignore you.

 

detached.amusement's picture

I should make you explain why jet fuel melts steel beams first, lol!

 

you seem to forget about very important things such as densities, specific heat & heat transfer rates...

 

now with that in mind, you should be able to figure out why your asserrtion about the thermosphere & solar panels is completely fucking ignorant.

Lumberjack's picture

One thing that can be said about real engineers or those who have an engineering background here at ZH... We are now qualified to deem certain persons medically, clinically and totally synaptically challenged (insane) without a medical degree.  

 

Axenolith's picture

It's like observing an "intellectual" special olympics...

detached.amusement's picture

Its funny knowing how Arthur felt with the black knight calling him a yellow bastad

 

Im not qualified to call him insane, but I'm qualified to tell him his ideas have massive logical holes in them that completely negate his assertion.

detached.amusement's picture

and he junks me instead of thanking me for helping him out in his search for rigor!   sorry dude, densities matter and you're not getting around that fact.

have you come to terms with your assertion implying that jet fuel melts steel beams yet?  *shakes head*

detached.amusement's picture

apparently there's 4 of you that dont understand that even though the average energy of a particle up there is of the temp mentioned, there are so few of them it will never be able to transfer a significant enough amount of heat to the materials that it would actually melt the solar panels.

 

which was why I said it is the same as jet fuel doesnt melt steel beams - there simply was not enough joules to have transferred enough heat to the steel beams to have brought them to their weakening point.

 

stoichiometry deals with molar amounts of reactant  - there's a tremendous difference between 18 molar HCL and 1 molar HCL aqueous solutions.  one will get uncomfortable after a time and one will instantly burn your skin. 

 

I was hoping I could give principles and then you could add 2+2, but apparently that's beyond some folks...

Lumberjack's picture

The best lessons learned are by the mistakes one makes. To repeat them, is a fools errand. Lj

 

 

Lumberjack's picture

REFRACTION. You are no Civil Engineer. 

peddling-fiction's picture

This subject sure has made some shills float to the surface like turds.

We won´t be gentle with you guys in other articles.

peddling-fiction's picture

@Droid

Have you ever had to consider, or have you seen other civil engineers need to consider the drop in curvature in any structures that need to be dead level for long distances?

Was the drop in curvature something you were even taught at your university?

Droid Fuel's picture

No.  curvature was never taught, not even mentioned.   Everything is designed based on the assumption of flat.

Engineer, W. Winckler, wrote into the Earth Review October 1893 regarding the Earth’s supposed curvature, stating, “As an engineer of many years standing, I saw that this absurd allowance is only permitted in school books.  No engineer would dream of allowing anything of the kind.  I have projected many miles of railways and many more of canals and the allowance has not even been thought of, much less allowed for.  This allowance for curvature means this - that it is 8” for the first mile of a canal, and increasing at the ratio by the square of the distance in miles; thus a small navigable canal for boats, say 30 miles long, will have, by the above rule an allowance for curvature of 600 feet.  Think of that and then please credit engineers as not being quite such fools.  Nothing of the sort is allowed.  We no more think of allowing 600 feet for a line of 30 miles of railway or canal, than of wasting our time trying to square the circle

The Suez Canal which connects the Mediterranean Sea with the Gulf of Suez on the Red Sea is a clear proof of the Earth’s and water’s non-convexity.  The canal is 100 miles long and without any locks so the water within is an uninterrupted continuation of the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea.  When it was constructed, the Earth’s supposed curvature was not taken into account, it was dug along a horizontal datum line 26 feet below sea-level, passing through several lakes from one sea to the other, with the datum line and the water’s surface running perfectly parallel over the 100 miles.  The average level of the Mediterranean is 6 inches above the Red Sea, while the floodtides in the Red Sea rise 4 feet above the highest and drop 3 feet below the lowest in the Mediterranean, making the half-tide level of the Red Sea, the surface of the Mediterranean Sea, and the 100 miles of water in the canal, all a clear continuation of the same horizontal line!  Were they instead the supposed curved line of globe-Earthers, the water in the center of the canal would be 1666 feet (502 x 8 inches = 1666 feet 8 inches) above the respective Seas on either side!

Lumberjack's picture

I used it here (the array was about 1 mile in length and the curvature of the earth, about 8 inches, had to be accounted for.

 

http://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/airdef/an-fps-118.htm

 

Several runways we did also required the adjustment.

Droid Fuel's picture

Great!  I had runway design. 
Please share with us how the design accounted for the curvature of the earth?

Lumberjack's picture

Strategic Air Command base that was also an alternate landing site for the shuttle. 

 

This might interest you both!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3w7w58CREY

Droid Fuel's picture

Haha, yeah right.  The degree of undulations in some runways have larger variance than what you claim the glidescope accounts for with regards to earth’s “curve”.

You just exposed yourself as a lying, lame, limp-wristed government shill.

Lumberjack's picture

let me know how you 'score'...he he he he.

peddling-fiction's picture

Anybody who has walked on a runway like me, knows that they undulate wildly Lumberjack.

This truth is getting out everywhere. No way to stop it any more.

Your interest in trying to ridicule Droid confirms how delicate this truth about our earth is.

Yet you never post anything meaningful that is not copy-pasted from somewhere.

 

Lumberjack's picture

I also never knew that you guys could actually get syphyllis just from LOOKING at pictures on your computer. Too bad you didn't get it treated in time....

peddling-fiction's picture

Maybe it is time for Lumberjack to run-a-away from the truth... /lol

peddling-fiction's picture

@Lumberjack

You are a lying, lame, limp-wristed government shill.

Be gone. /lol

peddling-fiction's picture

@Droid

Good explanation. It seems to be the truth.

I am an IT expert, so math and logic are part of my everyday life.

I gather we have all been played.

We CGI´d some folks...

ToSoft4Truth's picture

Just look at the pics in the links.  Zoom in and an arrow points at a black splotch.

 

I saw Sarah Palin in those moon photos.... not elderly Sarah Palin with the turkey neck but instead young "Rice" loving Sarah Palin is in the pic.... look for the black splotch.

PitBullsRule's picture

I had a tenant that was as loony as a shit house rat, and she did an interview for some other lunatic at a lunatic conferance held each year in Las Vegas.  In the interview she claimed she was a descendant of the Rothchilds, that her father worked for the CIA and that he used her as a child prostitute.  She also claimed that she traveled between different historical times, and that she was a "reptilian".  

After I evicted her and her family, I found that she not only trashed the house, but she was living in extremely unsanitary conditions, and she was spending all her money on marijuana.  

The interview she did, can be seen on Youtube, and has been viewed by over a million people, and it lasts over an hour.  So over a million hours have been spent watching this insane woman rant about bizarre thoughts occuring in her sick head.

One thing I learned from the experience of evicting her, is that a large portion of the society will believe a lunatic.  They say 25% of the population has a mental illness, and 25% of 350 million Americans is 75 million crazies.  Of those 75 million crazies, many of them think the moon landings are fake, and you will never be able to convince them they are wrong, because... they're crazy.

 

peddling-fiction's picture

And praising Pitbulls makes you a classy and stable citizen... /s

headhunt's picture

This guy is no rocket scientist.

Study some physics and math,

Last, don't you think Russia, China and a dozen other countries would love to embarrass the USA by revealing this as a scam.

indio007's picture

Your post is a twisted version of  Affirming the consequent

 

  1. If P, then Q.
  2. Q.
  3. Therefore, P

Yours is 

  1. If not P, then Q.
  2. Q.
  3. Therefore, not P.
headhunt's picture

It was a post, not a theorem

CHX's picture

I only believe it when they bring me some silver from the moon ("moonshot")... LOL

Huh Reeeally's picture

All of this is a pointless stir-the-pot exercise. Shame on ZH for promoting this story.

Truly Inspiration's picture

Just one question to all these conspiracy thinkers: why should US fake 6! moon landings? If NASA wasn't on the moon, why risking to get disclosed 5 more times? Any idea of how many people worked for the Apollo mission and how many groundstations worldwide were involved?

And what about the instruments which were brought to the moon which we still use TODAY!

If people don't understand the matter, they are goiing for conspiracy. Can't believe that there are still people out there thinking that the moon landing was a hoax or even that the earth is flat.

flyingcaveman's picture

You can't put in 'just the tip', besides they had to keep the gravy train going.  That money was 'invested' so you taxpeyer is expecting something from it.  So just shut up and enjoy your Tang and velcro, both of which were invented without any help from the space program.  If you think Hillary winning 6 coins flips in a row was unlikely, what NASA did was toss a coin and have it land on edge 6 times in a row.

flapdoodle's picture

A single "moon landing" not repeated would raise MANY more questions than six apparent moon landings.

NASA played it very well - towards the end, NASA could claim that the American public was "bored" with going to the moon, so they could stop going.

A better question - its been nearly 50 YEARS since the first moon landing. Technology is much more advanced and far cheaper. It only took 35 years between the Wright brothers first flight at Kitty Hawk to jet fighers. But in space, almost nothing new has been acomplished, at least in the manned part. By all measures, we should have been walking on Mars a decade ago...

Droid Fuel's picture

These are great points flapdoodle.
One item to add.
If we landed on the moon in the 60s with etch-a-sketch tecnology then we would have the moon fully militarized today.  

theprofromdover's picture

The first rule I have about conspiracy theories is-

If I was one of those folks in the know, would I be able to keep my mouth shut for ever.

Hell no, and I'm just an ordinary guy.

Or would I be brave enough to expose the bullshit.

Err, not sure. (but I'm sure someone else would)

 

If you go on Google Moon, you can actually see the tyre tracks. Pretty thorough photoshopping if it is.

Lets not distract ourselves with stupidity like this.

We just landed a tin can on a comet for crissakes!

 

 

 

More Ammo's picture

Landed?  A very progressive use of the term.

 

A comet nucleus has very low gravity, so the lander relied on harpoons, hold-down thrusters and ice screws to secure itself to the surface. When these mechanisms all failed, the lander bounced back into space for a 1 hour and 50 minute ballistic flight. Due to Comet 67P's low gravity, Philae weighed about the same as a paper clip. On its first rebound, Philae ascended with a speed of 15 inches (38 centimeters) per second. Escape velocity from the comet is 19.7 inches (50 cm) per second.  - See more at: http://www.space.com/30088-philae-comet-landing-discoveries-rosetta-info...

 

http://www.space.com/30088-philae-comet-landing-discoveries-rosetta-info...

A comet nucleus has very low gravity, so the lander relied on harpoons, hold-down thrusters and ice screws to secure itself to the surface. When these mechanisms all failed, the lander bounced back into space for a 1 hour and 50 minute ballistic flight. Due to Comet 67P's low gravity, Philae weighed about the same as a paper clip. On its first rebound, Philae ascended with a speed of 15 inches (38 centimeters) per second. Escape velocity from the comet is 19.7 inches (50 cm) per second.  - See more at: http://www.space.com/30088-philae-comet-landing-discoveries-rosetta-info... A comet nucleus has very low gravity, so the lander relied on harpoons, hold-down thrusters and ice screws to secure itself to the surface. When these mechanisms all failed, the lander bounced back into space for a 1 hour and 50 minute ballistic flight. Due to Comet 67P's low gravity, Philae weighed about the same as a paper clip. On its first rebound, Philae ascended with a speed of 15 inches (38 centimeters) per second. Escape velocity from the comet is 19.7 inches (50 cm) per second.  - See more at: http://www.space.com/30088-philae-comet-landing-discoveries-rosetta-info... A comet nucleus has very low gravity, so the lander relied on harpoons, hold-down thrusters and ice screws to secure itself to the surface. When these mechanisms all failed, the lander bounced back into space for a 1 hour and 50 minute ballistic flight. Due to Comet 67P's low gravity, Philae weighed about the same as a paper clip. On its first rebound, Philae ascended with a speed of 15 inches (38 centimeters) per second. Escape velocity from the comet is 19.7 inches (50 cm) per second.  - See more at: http://www.space.com/30088-philae-comet-landing-discoveries-rosetta-info... A comet nucleus has very low gravity, so the lander relied on harpoons, hold-down thrusters and ice screws to secure itself to the surface. When these mechanisms all failed, the lander bounced back into space for a 1 hour and 50 minute ballistic flight. Due to Comet 67P's low gravity, Philae weighed about the same as a paper clip. On its first rebound, Philae ascended with a speed of 15 inches (38 centimeters) per second. Escape velocity from the comet is 19.7 inches (50 cm) per second.  - See more at: http://www.space.com/30088-philae-comet-landing-discoveries-rosetta-info... A comet nucleus has very low gravity, so the lander relied on harpoons, hold-down thrusters and ice screws to secure itself to the surface. When these mechanisms all failed, the lander bounced back into space for a 1 hour and 50 minute ballistic flight. Due to Comet 67P's low gravity, Philae weighed about the same as a paper clip. On its first rebound, Philae ascended with a speed of 15 inches (38 centimeters) per second. Escape velocity from the comet is 19.7 inches (50 cm) per second.  - See more at: http://www.space.com/30088-philae-comet-landing-discoveries-rosetta-info...
bluskyes's picture

Why is Nasa having such trouble with the van-allen belts now? They are sending up rpobe after probe to determine their effect - and telling everyone that the radiation poses a serious threat to life, and electronics.

But I guess the apollo equipment was much less susceptible to those effects.

where is the big blast mark under the lander from the thrusters, or the dust that was inevitably stirred up?

How does an air conditioned space suit work without an atmosphere?

Many good points about reflections, and atmospheric effects seen in footage also provide food for thought.

At this point in my life, most of what I accepted as fact when I was 18 has been demonstrated to be false. I don't claim that the earth is flat, but I am not beyond considering it.

More Ammo's picture

How does an air conditioned space suit work without an atmosphere?

Heat is energy in the infrared wavelength and is emitted even without a material conductor.  This is why/how FLIR night sights work and work better when the surroundings are cool.

In the near absolute zero conditions of space the effect is enhanced. albeit in direct sunlight other issues arise.

I would wonder where they got the power to stay warm...

The narrative of Apollo 13 where all the power was shut down on the trip back to conserve it since the service module was damaged.  The crew struggled to keep warm was a more realistic scenario. Why not just put on those nice comfy suits?

 

bluskyes's picture

Interesting, I am surely no physicist, but it seem to me that they use vacuum zones in thermoses, and cryogenic vessels. In the case of cryogenics, the cold temperature is inside the vessel. Try touching the outside of a tractor trailer that is full of liquid hydrogen, or liquid nitrogen. there isn't much of a difference in temperature.This would suggest to me that space is not a good conductor, and that the high pressure side of the cooling unit would have to be kept in the shade at all times.

 

Citxmech's picture

Pressure is part of the equation too.  For example, as pressure is reduced, water boils at lower and lower temperatures.  Opposite happens as pressure is increased.

That's how come propane that would normally be gas a room temp is a liquid in a room-temp pressure vessel.