PDA

View Full Version : All the proof you need: the Saturn V



Justincccc
2002-Apr-13, 03:11 AM
The Saturn V rocket is proof that Apollo could not be faked. Three Complete Saturn V rockets exist, all of which appear to be fully capable of putting people on the moon. If the whole thing was faked, then why would NASA spend so much money trying to build these fully-working rockets? To put on a good show? I have seen the Saturn V rocket at KSC. Knowing fully how rocket engines work, I have determined that the F-1 engines on the Saturn V rocket are real. The structure will withstand the stresses of launch. The rocket is detailed down to the finest detail, down to the number of bolts on the honeycomb panels at the bottom of the SI-C. Don't take my word for it. Do your own research. Study a little rocket science, and see the rocket for yourself.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Justincccc on 2002-04-12 23:12 ]</font>

Firefox
2002-Apr-13, 04:25 AM
As I recall, the Saturn Vs on display were actually intended for moon shots. They were not used, of course, when the Apollo program was cut short...at least, that's what I've heard.


-Adam

Justincccc
2002-Apr-13, 04:56 AM
Its partly true that the Saturn V's in existence are from cancelled Apollo missions, and partly true that they are vehicles made from remaining left-over test hardware. For example, the S-IC on the Saturn V on display at KSC is S-IC-T, a test article. The Saturn V at the Alabama Space center is made up entirely of test articles. The JSC Saturn V is the only one composed of flight articles, but are from three different missions: The S-IC from Apollo 19, The S-IV-B from Apollo 18, and the S-II from Apollo 20

2002-Apr-13, 11:46 AM
On 2002-04-13 00:56, Justincccc wrote:

The Watergate Principle:
Government corruption will always
be reported in the past tense.

5:36 A.M. My math hour
Yeah Now tomorrow
its three posts to against and 2 to Lun`A

JayUtah
2002-Apr-13, 02:04 PM
Speaking from an engineer's point of view, the F-1 is the pinnacle of engine design. Yes, the SSMEs have a greater thrust-to-weight ratio, but nothing matches the F-1 in the combination of simplicity and power.

Those who argue that the engines weren't capable, or that the Saturn V wasn't up to snuff, don't realize that these spacecraft are the prime teaching examples for engineers in training. Armies of students learn their trade by reproducing the design of these spacecraft. I had an actual Rocketdyne J-2 to play with when I learned all this stuff.

Russ
2002-Apr-14, 08:20 PM
I too have seen these engineering marvels and know them to be proof positive of the success of the Apollo program. As an engineer I can appriciate what it took to produce such a thing. And to think they did it with slide rules and pencils!

Conrad
2002-Apr-14, 09:26 PM
Ah, Justincccc!

Clearly you do not know the depths/heights the HB's will ascend/descend to, in order to have their cosy, comfy World Conspiracy weltanschaung sustained.

It's quite beyond me to suggest any credible HB reason for NASA to "invent" three gigantic, realistic, sustainable Apollo rockets, but, rest assured, the HB's will come up with some excuse/reason/piffling load of nonsense.

Now, Newt Gingrich, there's something that defies all rational explanation ...

jrkeller
2002-Apr-15, 03:03 AM
Justincccc,

Silly boy. You are obviously new to the whole Moon Hoax stuff. If you close down one path for a Hoax Believer (HB) they'll just create a new path.

Of course, millions of people saw the Saturn V lift off, but it didn't go to the Moon. It went to one of two places. High Earth orbit or Anartica. Why would we have all those "exploration" bases in such a cold and useless place, unless it was to find the crew.

For a while, the HBs told us that the Moon rocks were meteorites, but when it was pointed out that the outer surfaces of the moon rocks weren't melted, the story changed. Now they say that the rocks were made in an oven at NASA.

Close one door and another will be fabricated.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jrkeller on 2002-04-14 23:04 ]</font>

James
2002-Apr-15, 04:06 PM
On 2002-04-14 23:03, jrkeller wrote:

Close one door and another will be fabricated.

I suppose that the only good thing about it would be that the new door is just as easy or even easier to close than the last one.

Justincccc
2002-Apr-15, 08:14 PM
These HBers never stop, do they?

Still, why would they build the Saturn V for no reason? Okay, so all the people in the government were stupid enough to spend billions of dollars to build the Saturn V to do nothing, and in the end, they destroy the tooling and stick the blueprints in some building in Alabama so that no one would ever build it again. This, to me is stupid. The U.S. government is smarter than that. All that the HBers really demonstrate is ignorance.

Well either way, they haven't convinced me yet, so I still win.

If we go back to the moon and find the landers and the footprints, what will they say? That NASA conducted all the moon missions without people?

jrkeller
2002-Apr-15, 11:33 PM
I think that some of the Moon Hoax stuff will wane when the Japanese and I believe ESA launch some missions to the moon and can see the landing sites. While the die hard HBs will never give up, I think should convince those of the fence that the moon landings did happen.

I think the die hards will just say that we payed off Japan and ESA to say they sae the sites.

kucharek
2002-Apr-16, 08:35 AM
I think the die hards will just say that we payed off Japan and ESA to say they saw the sites.

The usual reply is, that the stuff was brought there later by unmanned missions, to cover the hoax...
Don't waste your energy by argueing with the hard-boiled HB's. Use it for the normal guys who at first get impressed by the arguments of HB's, but will listen and understand when you start to refute.

Harald

temporary40
2002-Apr-17, 04:10 PM
I have seen several reasons "why" there
are moon landing conspiracy hoaxes:

1. A long time ago I lived in the city
of Grand Rapids where many residents of
the city decended from a very isolationist version of Dutch Christianity. One of my co-workers at a part-time job I held "explained" how the Saturn V could not work. His proof was that it was impossible for astronauts to "bounce" on the moon, so therefore special effects were used. It was also "impossible" for a lunar module to take off from the surface of the moon. Also, the idea that a car could be placed on the moon was "proof" that the landings were fake special effects. My co-worker started to feel sorry for me, because I had been fooled by the government (he had been raised this way). His pity was replaced by a high minded sense of officiousness; he was very proud of the fact that he knew more than I did about physics and was more than glad to educate me about my delusions. My attempts to talk about Boyle's law or mass-impulse ratios was treated as some schizophrenic raving that had to be corrected (and, my delusion that moon landings were "real" probably led to gossip that I was "weird" and should not be accepted in a social sense. Tsk, tsk, tsk).

2. There are some countries out there (I won't name any names, China) that would like to be the 'first' to go to the Moon. How convenient it would be if you were a member of a newly rich nation that invested alot of money in American media enterprises and you came across a sleazy network called Fox that was looking for investors in its shows, especially one that was about the 'faked' moon landing. Hmm? Does anyone see "conspiracy" here? (And can anyone disagree with me on this one: that if and when China lands a man on the moon, you will see the phrase 'first Chinese man to land on the Moon' "accidentally" changed to 'first man to land on the Moon?' Hmm?)

3. the rare, disgruntled astronaut: Brian O'leary is a nutcase who never should have been allowed close to NASA. How convenient for him that the landings were faked.

4. The magic ray syndrome (try to figure this one out). This holds that:

1. No. We did not go to the Moon.
2. But, IF we did go to the Moon,
then it had to be because we had a device
from a downed UFO that emmitted magical travel rays - how else did the LM take off from the surface of the Moon. Sigh...

Hat Monster
2002-Apr-17, 05:08 PM
The SaturnV lifted off and went through a DIMENSIONAL TESLA KENNEDY WATERGATE HOAGLAND PORTAL and arrived in ANOTHER UNIVSERSERSERSE with aliens in sausers and big green heads.
NASSAU wanted to talk to the aliens in sausers with big green heads in ANOHTRE UNIVERSERSERSE so they said they were going to moon and not reall going to moon going to talk to aliens in sausers with big green heads...

Art Vandelay
2002-Apr-17, 06:30 PM
In this case, even 364 foot high proof won't do any good. As long as there's money to be made, there will be people willing to sell the hoax story. It's unfortunate that there's such a large market for this sort of thing. Of course, a lot of Americans think New Mexico is a foreign country so we shouldn't be surprised.

temporary40
2002-Apr-17, 06:38 PM

temporary40
2002-Apr-17, 06:40 PM
"The Saturn V rocket is proof that Apollo could not be faked. Three Complete Saturn V rockets exist, all of which appear to be fully capable of putting people on the moon. If the whole thing was faked, then why would NASA spend so much money trying to build these fully-working rockets."

The rocket was used to ferry astronauts to Area 51 where a reproduction of the moon was created for them to use. IDIOT!

temporary40
2002-Apr-17, 06:43 PM
"The Saturn V rocket is proof that Apollo could not be faked. Three Complete Saturn V ... then why would NASA spend so much money trying to build these fully-working rockets."

>The rocket was used to ferry astronauts to >Area 51 where a reproduction of the moon >was created for them to use. IDIOT!

If you're going through the trouble of launching a rocket to area 51, why not just go to the moon instead?

WHOSE THE IDIOT NOW?

temporary40
2002-Apr-17, 06:45 PM
>>The rocket was used to ferry astronauts to >>Area 51 where a reproduction of the moon >>was created for them to use. IDIOT!

>If you're going through the trouble of >launching a rocket to area 51, why not just >go to the moon instead?

>WHOSE THE IDIOT NOW?

Uh, because you're part of the coverup, er uh, you are a Mason - uh Liar liar pants on fire!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, damn it all to hell anyway.

Conrad
2002-Apr-18, 07:41 AM
[quote]
On 2002-04-17 12:10, temporary40 wrote:
I have seen several reasons "why" there
are moon landing conspiracy hoaxes:
<snip>

2. There are some countries out there (I won't name any names, China) that would like to be the 'first' to go to the Moon. How convenient it would be if you were a member of a newly rich nation that invested alot of money in American media enterprises and you came across a sleazy network called Fox that was looking for investors in its shows, especially one that was about the 'faked' moon landing. Hmm? Does anyone see "conspiracy" here? (And can anyone disagree with me on this one: that if and when China lands a man on the moon, you will see the phrase 'first Chinese man to land on the Moon' "accidentally" changed to 'first man to land on the Moon?' Hmm?)

Aha, I beat you there on this one! On the old board I posited that the USSR, foaming at the mouth with rage that the evildecadentcpitalistogsofthe USA got to the Moon first, began a whispering campaign to undermine the credibility of Apollo. So the HBer's were actually carrying out the hidden agenda of the KGB ...
I'd be careful putting this assertion about too much, since the HBer's will probably come after the asserter with devices that go "bang".

temporary40
2002-Apr-18, 02:48 PM
"foaming at the mouth with rage that the evildecadentcpitalistogsofthe USA got to the Moon first."

This brings up a bunch of "dumb" questions
I have always wanted to ask:

1. I know the Russians never sent a man to the moon because they could never design a "heavy" booster safe for enough for manned spaceflight - and the lander design would never have been safe either.

With today's advancement in Titan booster technology, why hasn't a two man configuration ala the Gemini been proposed for sale to or development in Russia. After all, if their Energia Buran borrowed heavily from our shuttle, why can't they borrow heavily from technology that would allow them to send a man to the moon using less than 3 million pounds of thrust. With today's advancements in composite materials and microelectronics, shaving "weight" off would be easier. It would be theoretical to get to the moon, at least one man, with 1.5 - 2 million pounds of thrust. The Alcantara space base in Brazil would allow a Titan to shed 20 percent of the energy requirements for lift off due to the rotation of the earth's equator at the point. And again, breaking the rocket programme into smaller component rockets would lower costs even further - I am not talking about EOR but sending components to LOR. Anyway, dumb questions all I am sure. I have done alot of reading on this topic and I know that rebuilding the Saturn V is physically impossible, you might as well get someone to replicate the Great Wall of China with popsicle sticks. And don't tell me no one interested in going back to the Moon: EVERYONE is. Only NASA's propaganda machine tells us differently.

I must be either crazy or too dumb to know any better.

Peter B
2002-Apr-18, 09:59 PM
Temporary40 said (in part): "and I know that rebuilding the Saturn V is physically impossible, you might as well get someone to replicate the Great Wall of China with popsicle sticks."

Eh? What do you mean? If someone was to throw the money in the ring, I'm sure it'd be quite possible to recreate a Saturn 5, and without popsicle sticks...

"And don't tell me no one interested in going back to the Moon: EVERYONE is. Only NASA's propaganda machine tells us differently."

Eh? What do you mean? "We all want to go, but NASA has convinced us all that we don't." Is that it? Do you have any evidence for that opinion?

David Hall
2002-Apr-19, 04:14 AM
And don't tell me no one interested in going back to the Moon: EVERYONE is. Only NASA's propaganda machine tells us differently.


Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.

I would partially agree with you that most everyone wants to go back to the Moon. Ask the average person if it would be a good idea and I'm sure most of them would say "sure". But then ask them for the money to do it and see what happens. suddenly they aren't as gung-ho about it.

I want to go to Europe. I've been wanting to see Greece and Austria for years. But I don't have the time, I don't have the money, I don't have the energy. In other words, it's a very low priority for me. That's the same fix we're in regarding the Moon. Sure, we could go back if we really wanted to. It's just that our priorities have shifted and there's no real need to go. Other things are taking preference now.

Why did we go in the first place? Curiosity? No, it was simply we found a reason to override the cost of getting there. The cold war. It was the space race with the Soviets that pushed us up there. I submit the idea that, if it wasn't for the Russians, we would still never have been there at all.

We'll get back someday. Most probably when the technology becomes advanced enough and cheap enough to make it worthwhile. That is, unless we discover some overriding reason to get there earlier, damn the cost, like the first time when cold war fever sparked the motivation.

temporary40
2002-Apr-19, 04:44 PM
"I'm sure it'd be quite possible to recreate a Saturn 5, and without popsicle sticks..."

If you review the man hours that went into building the Saturn V, you will quickly realize that it would take centuries to do it by trying to recreate the specifications of the plans. Far cheaper and safer to start over scratch, especially with the lessons learned from the past.

I run into this time estimate problem all the time when I work as a computer consultant. On one project I worked on, I had to deal with a UNIX computer network used by Ford Motor Company to store tens of thousands of documents over its entire global operation. Apparently a representative of Microsoft sold Ford on the idea of transferring all this information onto Microsoft's products. A year later nothing was heard of this. A puzzled, (but one of the best programmers I have ever met) asked me why this was so. I explained that in order to transfer all this information from one system to another, it would have to be VERIFIED by a human. When I started to think of the average worker showing up, putting in maybe 6 hours of productive work that could be verified by quality control, I started to see the centuries stretch out before me, even if hundreds of workers were put on the task... Likewise, reconstructing the Saturn V would throw thousands of workers into a task lasting God knows how long just to VERIFY that the plans are what they say they are. And if any of you computer guys have worked for or with computer or technology subcontractors, you know EXACTLY what I am talking about. If you go the route of trying to recreate the Saturn V, you will most likely end up trying to "fudge" the plans, meaning that the failure tolerances of the plans will constantly kick in, guaranteeing that each attempt will end in a nice little fire-ball with 1/4 the force of the atom bomb that leveled Hiroshima. Far safer to start over again (and there are more problematic details not worth going into without a chalk board and endless supplies of coffee).

With todays advances in microelectronics, integration and communications, a huge amount of weight could be shaved off the guidance systems, and the Lunar Module could be decreased by a good factor (I would also completely do away with the CSM/LM docking procedure - alot of wasted engineering work there).

"Eh? What do you mean? "We all want to go, but NASA has convinced us all that we don't." Is that it? Do you have any evidence for that opinion?"

Just opinion. I think I am seeing more and more references to going back to the moon, but again, I should be careful before shooting off my mouth. But don't be surprised if all of sudden a a whole generation of post-Internet bored kids don't start calmoring all at once ... When I was eight years old, I spent every waking moment I could right before Apollo 11 building models of Lunar Modules, and when Jack Schmidt was on the moon in Apollo 17, my career goal was "lunar geologist" (I vaguely remember having some sort of a "planetary chemistry and geology" science lab set up in my room as a kid created out of the combined parts of a Gilbert and Skilcraft chemistry set). Don't underestimate the power of a kid who wants to go the moon!

Sorry I can't find the exact quote now, but I remember Dan Goldin making some disparaging comments about manned lunar exploration that I thought were a little strange given the nature of the huge cost over-runs involved in the ISS. But I will do more work before I run at the mouth without the exact quotes.

Quote:

"And don't tell me no one interested in going back to the Moon: EVERYONE is. Only NASA's propaganda machine tells us differently. "

"We'll get back someday. Most probably when the technology becomes advanced enough and cheap enough to make it worthwhile. That is, unless we discover some overriding reason to get there earlier, damn the cost, like the first time when cold war fever sparked the motivation."

Don't underestimate a generation a kids who have suddenly gotten bored by the Internet and want to see whats out there.