PDA

View Full Version : Turnabout and fair play



Wiley
2002-Jun-04, 11:35 PM
In preparing an argument, one of the things I like to do is to turn the argument around, just to see where it leads. So in that spirit I have the following question: Let's assume the moon landing as a hoax was the widely accepted theory. What would prove that the moon landing hoax was a hoax?

As an example, the dust kicked up when the astronauts supposedly walked (sic) moves in perfect parabolas, no dust clouds just perfect projectile motion. This could only occur in a vacuum. We could not create required vacuum on a stage even with today's technology. Neither could this have movie trickery. Using current technology we could fake this with CGI, but the computers in 1969 were not powerful enough to do this. Hence, we are forced to the conclusion that our hoax was hoax.

Any others?

(Reductio ad absurdum, baby!)

M_Welander
2002-Jun-04, 11:39 PM
Well, all I can say is this: you can *not* fake the lunar environment on film using computers, even today. In theory, yes, it could be done. In real life, no, we can't.

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-04, 11:45 PM
Converging shadows! No, wait... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

My choice for punching a hole in the Lunar Hoax Hoax would have to all of the independant ham radio data. Some of these guys had as much experience tracking radio signals as the folks tracking for NASA, and what reason would they have to cover for NASA? Your hoax is on the ropes now, Wiley! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Tomblvd
2002-Jun-05, 12:42 AM
On 2002-06-04 19:45, pvtpylot wrote:
Converging shadows! No, wait... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

My choice for punching a hole in the Lunar Hoax Hoax would have to all of the independant ham radio data. Some of these guys had as much experience tracking radio signals as the folks tracking for NASA, and what reason would they have to cover for NASA? Your hoax is on the ropes now, Wiley! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif


Cosmicdave eloquenty rebuts that argument:

"The old Ham Radio qoute is an old one with me I'm afraid. I have used ham radio for years too and can safely inform you that there is no guarantee to finding exactly where a broadcast is being transmitted from, only the general direction. Even with normal CB radio, the only way that you can be tracked is by triangulation, abit hard dont you think when the signals coming from somewhere in space. "

Notice how he has "used ham radio for years", although he is obviously not a ham, otherwise he would have properly used the term. And by the tone of the statement, he also seems to believe that "normal CB radio" is somehow superior to Ham Radio.

But all kidding aside, I've always said the telemetry is by far the strongest evidence against a hoax. If you notice CDs stumbling response, and his continued stumbling on the topic, he hasn't a clue as to what doppler shift is and how it could be used to track a spacecraft.

Using doppler, large tracking antennas, and timed data packets transmitted to and from Mission Control, the CM stack could be tracked to a very high degree of accuracy, so much so that they could see the wobble in the plot whenever the ship vented. This tracking also allowed them to discover the so called MASCONS, which are massive concentrations of, ummm, well, mass, under the surface of the moon that are so large and, well, massive that the shifts in gravity affect orbiting spacecraft.

AstroMike
2002-Jun-05, 12:57 AM
On 2002-06-04 20:42, Tomblvd wrote:
But all kidding aside, I've always said the telemetry is by far the strongest evidence against a hoax.

Yes, and also the Moon rocks (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb%5F2.htm), of course.

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-05, 01:11 AM
On 2002-06-04 20:42, Tomblvd wrote:
If you notice CDs stumbling response, and his continued stumbling on the topic, he hasn't a clue as to


Isn't it amazing how many of cd's posts that quote snippet could apply to? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

OK, here's another one the HB's should love: The waving flag. When I wave a flag through the air in my front yard the bottem and ends "flutter" in the air resistence. Watch any of the videos as the Apollo astronauts deploy their flags. The bottem and ends lag behind because of inertia, but there's no fluttering at all. the flag moves pretty much as a flat plane. NOT something you would see in an atmosphere.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-05, 03:07 AM
If you notice CDs stumbling response, and his continued stumbling on the topic, he hasn't a clue as to what doppler shift is and how it could be used to track a spacecraft.

The notion that triangulation is the only means of precision tracking is simply absurd. I'm not surprised he mentioned it and professed understanding of it. A lot of people know about that and how it works.

Directional antennas are not all that difficult. You locate the direction of a signal from one point, and simultaneously the direction of that signal from another point, and those two vectors intersect at the source of the signal.

Sure, that would be necessary in the most general case, where the signal could be coming from literally anywhere. But the joy of truly understanding a problem according to its theory and not just on the basis of uncomprehended examples is knowing where you can cheat.

Suppose you constrain the motion of a signal source to a known path, say to a long straight stretch of highway. Your receiving station is some distance from the highway. A second station is not required because your direction-finding vector will intersect the highway at only one point.

In fact, you don't even need a directional antenna if you can assume the signal source moves at a constant rate. That tracking problem can be solved with an omnidirectional antenna and doppler shift alone. Remember that doppler gives you velocity toward or away from the receiver. That means at each point along the highway, the velocity toward or away from the station is unique.

If you consider the classical example of the train whistle heard by a stationary observer to the side of the track, the pitch of the whistle is different at each point along the track. If you know what the "natural" pitch is, and have a good ear, you can determine how far away the train is simply by comparing the pitches and knowing where you are relative to the track.

The notion of constraining the velocity state of the transmitter is paramount. The Apollo spacecraft was primarily a ballistic projectile, and ballistic projectiles obey very strict relationships between altitude and velocity.

Think of pitching a baseball. It moves very rapidly from the pitcher to the catcher along a very flat ballistic trajectory (excluding knuckle balls, curve balls, spit balls, and other aerodynamic and salivadynamic effects). Now imagine lobbing that ball in a very high trajectory from pitcher to catcher. It follows a specific path, and moves comparatively slowly -- extremely slowly at its apex.

You can't mix and match. You can't throw it slow and shallow. You can't lob it high and invariably fast. There are hard and fast rules that govern the velocity state for any point along any ballistic trajectory. Those apply to the Apollo spacecraft.

Now let's say you're on the ground and you have a precise dish antenna which allows you to determine the signal's direction precisely. You know how the earth rotates so you can convert altitude and azimuth to vectors in geocentric space. And let's say you have the ability to precisely measure doppler shift.

Now you take a series of observations -- directions and velocities over precise time intervals. That combination of time interval, direction, and ballistic constraint allows you to determine a trajectory, which in turn provides a unique mapping of velocity and displacement, which provides a basis for translating observations into actual positions.

jrkeller
2002-Jun-05, 04:49 AM
I think the most convincing evidence for a moon hoax would be if NASA showed the world all the movie sets for all the missions. Image the size of all those sets. In some cases they would be miles across and the lighting that would go with that and all the other support equipment that would go with a monster set. Actually, I'd just like to see the lights that could produce the solar flux for such a hugh area.

sts60
2002-Jun-05, 05:03 AM
Yeah, think of Chamber A at JSC (where the Apollo lunar stack was vacuum tested). Now think of something 10 times larger. Now think of the walls of that monster buckling under the air pressure...

Peter B
2002-Jun-05, 05:34 AM
Well, I think I know how they'd protect the walls of the vacuum chamber from buckling - put it inside a vacuum chamber. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

(Or build it on the Moon...)

JayUtah
2002-Jun-05, 05:52 AM
Now think of something 10 times larger.

I actually did some of those computations on Apollohoax for a large hangar-sized vacuum chamber. I don't remember the exact loads and moments, but I remember they were surprising enough to make me go back and see if I could find my mistake because I was sure it couldn't be that much.

It's always fun to hear the hoax believers go on and on about the miraculous structural technology, materials science, and anti-gravity generators NASA must have invented in order to produce a suitable environment for faking the EVA film and video. Then it's fun to ask why, with all that miraculous know-now, they couldn't get past a little radiation.

Tomblvd
2002-Jun-05, 10:13 AM
Then it's fun to ask why, with all that miraculous know-now, they couldn't get past a little radiation.


Jay, try to keep up, will ya? Since we're now hiding the CM in geosynchronous orbit, we've solved the radiation problem....

.....at least until tomorrow

SpacedOut
2002-Jun-05, 10:55 AM
On 2002-06-05 01:03, sts60 wrote:
Yeah, think of Chamber A at JSC (where the Apollo lunar stack was vacuum tested). Now think of something 10 times larger. Now think of the walls of that monster buckling under the air pressure...


Sure but according to other parts of the theory, the flag is waving because of the BIG air-conditioning units needed to cool the Astronauts – therefore no need for a vacuum chamber – except when the LRV was moving. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

Sts60 – I’m just curious – why “sts60”? It was the first Shuttle launch of ’94 or am I totally off base…

2002-Jun-05, 12:31 PM
<a name="20020605.4:21"> page 20020605.4:21 aka Reception Decption
MY baINdex (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=183&forum=1#LOCKTHRD)
1: I have owned a CB radio since the `60's
2: I recall, the First "BUSH" war
3: i guess now its called the War in the Middle east
4: turning on my CB one day
5: and hearing Broarcast Live from the
6: battle ground the Blow by blow
7: I guess i mean rocket by rocket report
8: it sure was a strong signal..So I bought
9: Gas to fill the car gas tank..
now days CB's dead not 1 signal on any channel
My points this, I think that I was decieved then & now. There Are CB's I know it. I just know it.that they exist.

johnwitts
2002-Jun-05, 12:38 PM
What would make me believe in a hoax is someone who actually worked for NASA at the time, someone who was actually involved in some aspect of the undertaking of Apollo, someone who was actually in a position to know something was fishy, coming forward with some peice of evidence that cannot be explained in any other way. But it would have to be pretty convincing, and verifiable by others, and not inconsistent with what we already know about physics, engineering, etc. Then, maybe, I'd want to look deeper.

Personally, I've never looked for stuff simply to debunk HBs notions. I've always wanted to see if they were correct. Sibrels secret footage had me stumped for a while. I was not content with just saying 'yes but it could have happened as NASA says', I wanted to see if it could be true, that the Earth was faked in the window. That's when I noticed, after a while, the direction of the sunlight coming in through the hatch window. Not only did I have evidence that the footage could have been taken on the way to the Moon, as a practice run, I also had evidence that the footage was impossible to fake in the way described by the HBs.

That's the problem with the HBs. They assume we're just trying to defend NASA. I certainly am not. They are hardly the slickest organisation on (or off) the planet.

The HBs say 'it could have been faked like this...'. We say 'actually, no, that would not work'. If NASA faked the Moon Landings, the HBs have yet to find any real evidence of it, that stands up to much scrutiny.

Silas
2002-Jun-05, 03:38 PM
Completely off-topic...

So, Apollo 22 gets to the moon, but there's an accident, and the maneuvering jets are all blown out, so they can't do a course correction. Are they doomed to fly away from the earth with no hope of return? At that point, the three Astronauts get out a deck of cards and begin a very scrupulously honest game of three-handed contract bridge. Miraculously, the craft's course alters and they are saved!

Fair play is "Turnabout!"

Silas

AstroMike
2002-Jun-05, 06:19 PM
Here's another point. If NASA knew that the Moon rocks wouldn't able stand to scientific scrutiny (as the HBs say), then why bring back rocks in the first place?

Valiant Dancer
2002-Jun-05, 06:29 PM
On 2002-06-04 20:42, Tomblvd wrote:


On 2002-06-04 19:45, pvtpylot wrote:
Converging shadows! No, wait... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

My choice for punching a hole in the Lunar Hoax Hoax would have to all of the independant ham radio data. Some of these guys had as much experience tracking radio signals as the folks tracking for NASA, and what reason would they have to cover for NASA? Your hoax is on the ropes now, Wiley! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif


Cosmicdave eloquenty rebuts that argument:

"The old Ham Radio qoute is an old one with me I'm afraid. I have used ham radio for years too and can safely inform you that there is no guarantee to finding exactly where a broadcast is being transmitted from, only the general direction. Even with normal CB radio, the only way that you can be tracked is by triangulation, abit hard dont you think when the signals coming from somewhere in space. "

Notice how he has "used ham radio for years", although he is obviously not a ham, otherwise he would have properly used the term. And by the tone of the statement, he also seems to believe that "normal CB radio" is somehow superior to Ham Radio.

But all kidding aside, I've always said the telemetry is by far the strongest evidence against a hoax. If you notice CDs stumbling response, and his continued stumbling on the topic, he hasn't a clue as to what doppler shift is and how it could be used to track a spacecraft.

Using doppler, large tracking antennas, and timed data packets transmitted to and from Mission Control, the CM stack could be tracked to a very high degree of accuracy, so much so that they could see the wobble in the plot whenever the ship vented. This tracking also allowed them to discover the so called MASCONS, which are massive concentrations of, ummm, well, mass, under the surface of the moon that are so large and, well, massive that the shifts in gravity affect orbiting spacecraft.





OK, assuming that HAM radio only gives a general direction for transmission (a fair arguement), then how does CD account for the much faster change of aspect for a LEO orbiting spacecraft (one turn around the earth every 2 hours or so more or less). These EVA's and transmissions lasted more than 30 minutes. That would mean the moon would move slightly in the sky and the angle to the LEO object would move a much greater arc in the sky. (Has to be LEO. Anything higher could run us afoul of the evil Van-Allen radiation belts.)

Lessee, Moon rocks, parabolic dust motion, inability to create a true vacuum on earth. I think thats pretty close.