PDA

View Full Version : Simple hoax site



AstroMike
2002-Jun-14, 06:40 PM
http://www.empusa.clara.net/lunar/lunar1.htm

I posted this site on Apollohoax a few months ago, but I had to post here because it's so laughable. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif Enjoy!

JayUtah
2002-Jun-14, 07:04 PM
My comment at the time was more despair for his students who apparently have a pretty substandard physics teacher.

Andrew
2002-Jun-14, 07:04 PM
I remember this one. I sincerely hope his alleged credentials are bogus.

AstroMike
2002-Jun-14, 07:18 PM
I replied with a brief debunking twice, including a link to Clavius (http://www.clavius.org/index.html). He never posted my comments in his guestbook.

DaveC
2002-Jun-14, 09:58 PM
Pretty scary. A physics teacher AND a photographer who can't make sense of the Apollo record. Glad my kids aren't in his class.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-14, 10:57 PM
DaveC's comment is there, along with mine as the Clavius webmaster.

AstroMike
2002-Jun-15, 12:01 AM
I noticed that Bob Braeunig has posted there too with good replies.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-15, 12:36 AM
I don't profess to know the answers. I am merely asking questions.

Unfortunately the hoax believer's stock in trade is the question. It's the questions that do the damage, and the hoax believers' implication that no suitable answers exist. We'll see how interested Mr. Brown is in answers to his questions.

In 1996 the Delta rocket DC-X toppled over on landing and exploded.

Yeah, but why did it tip over? It took off, flew around for a while, returned to its launch site, landed safely, and shut off its engine. It fell over because the landing leg collapsed. The supposedly difficult technology -- variable-thrust engines, guidance, attitude-control, navigation -- these were all solved successfully. Its downfall was caused by something so prosaic as an unsuitably strong weld.

Strange really, they managed to do this on the Moon twenty-seven years earlier.

Not really. The problem is much more difficult on earth, and much more difficult if the same propulsion system is to be used for launch and landing.

It's more difficult on earth because off-axis thrust introduces a stronger moment. To hover the same mass on earth as opposed to the moon requires six times more thrust. That means when the thrust goes off-axis, the moment is six times greater, inducing six times the rotation rate. This means the vehicle must respond much more quickly to shifts in the center of mass or other factors that move the thrust off-axis.

Fuel sloshes more slowly in lunar gravity than in earth gravity. Further, differences in moment to due fuel depletion are less pronounced in lunar gravity. This too makes it easier to control the rocket.

Then there are external factors such as wind. There are no wind gusts on the moon. There are on earth, and the guidance system must compensate for them. And on earth, the interaction of the exhaust with the nearby ground and the air produces a "ground effect" with all kinds of unpredictable air currents around the vehicle.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the LM was a piloted vehicle, operated by some of the finest pilots in the world who had trained extensively to fly it. The DC-X was unmanned, flown by automation and by remote.

If a rocket did manage to land and take off vertically, it would have blown huge amounts of dust and debris in all directions.

And it did. You can see it on the film. Did it blow all the dust and debris away? No, nor should it have, since the exhaust plume was somewhat limited in diameter.

However, when the Apollo 11 landed, Neil Armstrong famously left his footprint in undisturbed dust.

Interesting claim, since no photograph of the first footprint was taken. Hoax believers cannot support the claim that Armstrong's famous foot step took place in "undisturbed" dust. In fact, other Apollo 11 photographs -- and similar photos from other missions -- quite clearly substantiate a degree of disruption to the lunar surface from the DPS plume.

The 'sunlight' in this photograph is clearly coming from the right and flaring into the lens. How come there are shadows on the roof of the exit and why is Buzz Aldrin so well lit?

Backscatter, zero-phase effect, heiligenschein -- by any other name it's the same illumination phenomenon. He's a photographer and a physicist and can't figure this one out?

The 'sunlight' here is coming from low down on the right. What's lighting Buzz Aldrin's back-pack?

Low down on the right would be the sunlit portion of the lunar surface in which Armstrong is standing.

He should be in shadow, like the ground.

No. A convoluted surface can only very slightly illuminate itself by diffuse reflection. However, it can quite strongly illuminate objects some distance away from it.

On TV he bounced down the ladder with both feet together.

... until he reached the last step, where he's poised in this photo. Then in the EVA footage he raises his left leg, saying something along the lines of, "I'm going to keep my leg up like this." He holds his pose for a second or two, then jumps to the footpad. The photo and EVA footage are perfectly consistent. David Percy -- who is undoubtedly the source for this argument -- simply plays a clip from a few seconds earlier when Aldrin was higher up and claims that's the part that corresponds to this photo. Pure, inexcusable deception.

Sunlight generates parallel shadows.

But the shadows appear parallel only when seen from directly above, and only when cast on flat, planar surfaces.

Could this be a studio light about 30 feet away?

No, it can't. The LM's stride is wider than 30 feet, yet the same light is postulated to case the LM's shadow. Note that there are no illumination or shadow fall-offs, which would be inevitable with the lighting setup so described.

The Sun would generate a very small point of light in the helmet.

Only in a theoretically perfect helmet. There is no substance which generates a perfect reflection, and Lexan is far from being such a substance. Every reflector -- even putatively specular reflectors -- scatter light to some degree. The majority of the light rays reflect away in the predictable specular angle of departure (computed from the surface normal and the angle of incidence). But the scattered rays depart in a sort of cone whose axis is the angle of departure. So the farther away you are from the reflector, the larger the highlight appears to be.

Mr. Brown's JPEG is pretty small. Looking at a high-resolution image of the photo in question (AS11-40-5875) reveals the highlight to be perfectly consistent with a reflection from the sun.

Note the Lunar Module on the left. Can you see any disturbed dust around it?

The question is, would you see any disturbed dust around it? Most of the thrust effects are visible from above (i.e., the LM cockpit) or from a great distance such as in locators in the J-missions.

There should be a large 'star burst' pattern or even a crater generated by the blast of the rocket engine.

AS11-40-5918 and AS11-40-5921 clearly show the thermal and mechanical effects of the exhaust upon the lunar surface. Mr. Brown's assumption that some interaction would be visible is satisfied, but he will need to justify by computation his assertion that wide-scale "starbursts" or craters should be visible. He's handwaving, and for a physicist that's inexcusable.

Why is the horizon darker than the foreground?

Because the photo is basically up-sun. Under those conditions, the farther away an object (i.e., rock, dust grain) is from the photographer, the more of its shaded side and the less of its lighted side will be visible. The differential illumination caused by varying phase angle is more acute on the moon because the curvature is greater. The change in phase angle versus distance from the photographer is more acute on the moon.

Sunlight doesn't generate hot spots, but studio lights do.

Patently absurd. Sunlight focused by intentional or inadvertent reflectors most certainly produces variations in illumination, and even pools of pseudo-caustic reflections. The pool of light behind Aldrin is most likely the reflection of sunlight from the polished aluminum cover of the LM's aft equipment bay.

The rock in the background (top left) appears to be lit from the side. If the light is coming from behind, the rock should have more shadow area on it.

Apparent shadow direction can be drastically fooled by phase and distance. I have determined empirically that at phase angles of 15-30°, at a distance of 20 meters (hi, Mattias) the photographed shadow will appear to lie perpendicular to the line of sight. Only the transverse aspect of the shadow is significant at that distance.

These effects are readily observable on earth. The hoax belief here is based on simple inattention to everyday observation.

NASA claim that the camera used on the Moon was designed to be used at waist height.

No. The typical RCU-mounted camera is just under the chin.

The horizon in this photograph is at eye level, therefore the camera must have been at eye level.

This, of course, presumes a perfectly planar and horizontal surface, which is not the case.

Further, the endpoints of the reflection of the horizon in Aldrin's helmet bend downward, indicating that the line of sight is below Aldrin's eye level. The correspondence of the directly observed horizon to the reflected horizon is meaningless.

No sign of any blast damage on the surface of the Moon.

No, not in this picture either. But other pictures exist that do show the effect.

... a force of over 10,000 newtons would be required to slow the module and act against the Moon's gravity.

Yeah, that's about right. We estimate about 12,000 N.

This amount of force would not leave the surface undisturbed.

Apples and oranges. The thrust of the rocket is not the same as the pressure of the exhaust plume on the surface.

On Earth, we have not been able to land a rocket vertically.

False. Also, apples and oranges: it's a different problem.

If the rocket is even a few degrees off horizonal or the surface is uneven, the force of the engine will cause the rocket to tip over as it nears the surface.

... unless corrected by a digital autopilot.

Whilst the physics is slightly different in a vacuum ...

Granted, but the most drastic difference is the lesser gravity of the moon. Less gravity, less thrust, less moment, less error rate.

the force of the engine would have been reflected by the surface as the module landed, this would have made the landing very complicated.

The "force" of the engine would not have been "reflected". Such imprecise terminology from a highly-trained scientist?

More accurately, the plume would interact with the surface, and the deflection may produce a buffetting effect on the descending vehicle. This was anticipated. That's why the descent profile called for shutting down the engine while still some 1.8 meters from the surface.

The pattern of plume deflection is not as one would intuitively believe. The plume strikes the surface then departs radially at an inclined angle. It does not form a "cloud" nor does it produce a lingering "roiling" effect as exhaust clouds in an atmosphere do.

The British Hawker Harrier fighter jet can achieve vertical landings, but it requires four jet outputs for stability.

It does not require four jet outputs; the LLTV flew just fine on one. The Harrier provides four jets because it's not especially difficult to provide them in the Harrier design, and providing them greatly simplifies things for the pilot.

Modern helicopters, by analogy, provide automatic governors to keep the main rotor RPM constant as the collective pitch is varied. This means the pilot does not have to explicit manipulate the tail rotor or throttle to avoid yaw. In earlier helicopters the pilot had to use the throttle to keep the RPM constant as he adjusted collective pitch, or compensate with the tail rotor. This, of course, made early helicopters much more difficult to fly. But the addition of a convenience that is taken for granted today doesn't mean the task of flying a helicopter was impossible before then.

This is a common mistake in evaluating technology. Because something is provided, it's assumed to be necessary and the task impossible without it.

How come every lunar blast-off was perfect?

Because it had to be. Therefore an incredible amount of engineering was expended toward making sure that engine would fire, and that one of the two redundant guidance systems would function.

The dust being thrown up by the Apollo 16 Lunar Rover is forming clouds.

Not "clouds" in the sense of being suspended in air, but "clouds" in the sense of many particles at different points on different trajectories. Demonstrating this via a still photo is very misleading.

In a vacuum, the dust should be thrown back in a arc.

Only if every single particle is given exactly the same trajectory: angle of departure and initial velocity. Since that's next to impossible, each particle will follow its own precise trajectory and have departed at a different angle. This will look like a cloud even in a vacuum.

What is most apparent is the behavior of the dust when seen in motion. The dust is obviously dry, obviously composed of very small particles, and obviously following only ballistic (i.e., no aerodynamic effect) trajectories.

The notion that a handful of dust should form a "perfect" arc is ludicrous.

If this much dust was moved by the wheels of vehicle, how come the blast of a rocket appears to have moved no dust at all.

The simple difference between aerodynamic loading and direct mechanical loading. In Phil's book he proposes an experiment by which you blow on a handful of flour. The logical extension of that is to poke at the flour with your finger. You can blow on flour until you're dizzy without materially affecting the shape of your flour pile, but you can quite easily poke it into different shapes with your finger.

Kodak say that normal Ektachrome slide film was used.

No, this is untrue. The normal Ektachrome emulsion was used, but it was placed on the Estar base. A photographer should certainly know the difference between emulsion and base.

What happens to slide film if you try to use it below minus 20 degrees Celsius? It shatters!

The Estar base was specifically formulated for high-altitude (i.e., low temperature) aerial photography. It's good to about -70 C.

Radiation and UV doesn't do it a lot of good either!

Of course, and had it been subjected to significant sources of either, that might have been a problem.

Transparency film has to be exposed very accurately, an error of one stop will produce an unusable photograph.

Yes and no. While it has a poor exposure latitude, it is more amenable to "pushing" and "pulling" in the darkroom. Thus they provided the astronauts with film that could be salvaged by experts back on earth.

And not all the film was Ektachrome reversal film. The black and white stock was standard negative film.

How could they know what the exposure should be when nobody had ever been there before?

Because the sun is the sun, and "sunny 16" works anywhere there's sun.

There's only one way that NASA can clear this up.

This is awfully presumptuous. It implies the arguments in favor of the hoax are all but proven, when in fact they are seriously flawed. A better course of action to "clear this up" is for the hoax believers to actually know something about their arguments.

Send a probe to the Moon and take some pictures of the landing sites.

... which hoax believers will promptly dismiss conjecturally as more NASA fabrication.

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2002-Jun-15, 01:08 AM
On 2002-06-14 20:36, JayUtah wrote:
In 1996 the Delta rocket DC-X toppled over on landing and exploded.

Yeah, but why did it tip over? It took off, flew around for a while, returned to its launch site, landed safely, and shut off its engine. It fell over because the landing leg collapsed. The supposedly difficult technology -- variable-thrust engines, guidance, attitude-control, navigation -- these were all solved successfully. Its downfall was caused by something so prosaic as an unsuitably strong weld.


And the Only Reason, that that Happened, was because they were Rushing the Program, to Secure Funding, which they Lost; Irony huh?

Andrew
2002-Jun-15, 08:58 AM
Here's some comments by "Pete Bown MPhys(Hons), DipEd, GradInstP, LRPS" in his guestbook, that you might get a chuckle out of:

"Pete Bown: As you say, the Moon doesn't have an atmosphere. But, the temperature is below -20 Celcius during daylight. The Moon can not be hotter than the Earth as it is the same distance from the Sun and receives the same amount of energy. There is no atmosphere to generate a greenhouse effect to raise the temperature to the same level as Earth. The Kodak film used would have shattered. Heat can stil be dissipated by radiation, that's how we get heat from the Sun.
-
Pete Bown: Try blowing into a bag of flour. In a vacuum a blast of gas will not cloud diffuse or billow out like an aerosol, it will form a jet. The path will only be disturbed by gravity or an object in it's way. On the Moon the blast from a decending rocket would form a pattern."

There's more. But I don't know how many I can get away with producing here.

David Hall
2002-Jun-15, 10:23 AM
On 2002-06-14 20:36, JayUtah wrote:

In 1996 the Delta rocket DC-X toppled over on landing and exploded.

Yeah, but why did it tip over? It took off, flew around for a while, returned to its launch site, landed safely, and shut off its engine. It fell over because the landing leg collapsed. The supposedly difficult technology -- variable-thrust engines, guidance, attitude-control, navigation -- these were all solved successfully. Its downfall was caused by something so prosaic as an unsuitably strong weld.


The Delta crashed because of an unconnected hydraulic line on the landing gear. Also, it had already had several successful test flights before the crash. So you can't say it hasn't be done.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/x-33/dc-xa.htm



However, when the Apollo 11 landed, Neil Armstrong famously left his footprint in undisturbed dust.

Interesting claim, since no photograph of the first footprint was taken.


Isn't the famous footprint photo acutally one of Aldrin's, and deliberately made to test the compaction ability of the soil?




How come every lunar blast-off was perfect?

Because it had to be. Therefore an incredible amount of engineering was expended toward making sure that engine would fire, and that one of the two redundant guidance systems would function.


Also, there were only six launches in total. Getting six out of six right doesn't seem like that much of a stretch to me. Besides, we should be giving them a pat on the back for accomplishing such a great feat, not using their success to imply that something is fishy.



In a vacuum, the dust should be thrown back in a arc.


A lot of the apparent "cloudiness" is obviously motion blurring in the exposure.


And here's one you didn't comment on, the comment at the bottom of the page:

p.s. nasa.gov and senate.gov have been looking at this page.
I know, I've got a site log!
You may be watching me, I'm watching you too!

So somebody from the very large nasa.gov domain clicked on his site. Doesn't mean anything does it? Maybe they were trying to find a legitimate Apollo site and stumbled onto this one by mistake. Maybe someone just got curious as to what was being said about them. Maybe they were trying to find an example of a site that was idiotic to prove just how little threat cranks like this pose. And the same goes for the senate domain as well. But no, it's gotta be Men In Black watching him like a hawk. And to follow up with that pseudo-macho comeback. Ooh.

I'd say this page was pretty low, but actually the low point was looking at the guestbook and seeing how many (rude ad homenim words deleted) actually agree with his statements. It's sooo sad.

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2002-Jun-15, 10:53 AM
On 2002-06-15 06:23, David Hall wrote:
I'd say this page was pretty low, but actually the low point was looking at the guestbook and seeing how many (rude ad homenim words deleted) actually agree with his statements. It's sooo sad.


Sad, doesn't even Begin, to Cover it; Downight Pitiful is Much Closer!

What's Really Sick though, is The Sheer Amount, of Willful Ignorance, that they Display!

SpacedOut
2002-Jun-15, 11:40 AM
Actually, if the respondents are being truthful, the most depressing part is how many HS students bought into it!

BTW – 2 questions for Jay:

1 - I know the landing profile called from the descent engine to shut down at 1.8m (6’) from the surface, did that happen on every mission?

2 – I agree with the reason that the pool of light behind Aldren in AS11-40-5902 and 5903 is reflection from the LM aft equipment bay. What I can’t figure out is why are the MET tracks from Apollo 14 so bright in AS14-67-9367 (http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/images/pao/AS14/10075616.jpg)? If you’ve answered this before, my apologies. I just don’t fully understand the optical properties of the lunar soil.

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2002-Jun-15, 11:49 AM
From The Website's Guestbook:
zaphod@erols.com

had this to say

You, sir, are an idiot. Your 'theories' are poorly formed and based on inaccurated suppositions. Try actually reading a physics book sometime. God help your students.


Obviously another Hitchhiker's Fan, no not me /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif, but I do Agree with him, Whole-Heartedly!



From The Website's Guestbook:
Neil A. Armstrong

had this to say

Sorry, guys...we were just joking around. We had no idea people would actually BELIEVE we went there!


This one Makes me Mad enough, to Spit Nails; I have Half a Mind, to Write a Rebuttal Entry, as the Esteemed Mr. Armstrong, and Complain about The Severe Case of Gastroenteritis with Accompanying Acute Halitosis, that I'm, Still Afraid of Catching, because of The Radiation, just to See if Either of These Jokers are Smart Enough, to Actually Catch it!



From The Website's Guestbook:
Phil Plait

had this to say

ALl of the questions raised by conspiracy theorists, including ones raised by you on your page, are not too hard to explain. I have a point by point rebuttal on my own website at http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html, with more detailed pages coming soon.


And this Last One, from our, Very Own, Bad Astronomer; Dang, he Gets Around!

_________________
If you Ignore YOUR Rights, they Will go away.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ZaphodBeeblebrox on 2002-06-15 07:59 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-Jun-15, 02:07 PM
"Pete Bown: As you say, the Moon doesn't have an atmosphere. But, the temperature is below -20 Celcius during daylight.

You'd think a physicist could spell "Celsius" correctly. But I'm told that spelling ability is not a good determiner of intelligence, so that's not necessarily an argument. However, knowing the correct daylight temperature of the lunar surface is a matter of intelligence, or at least of suitable research.

The Moon can not be hotter than the Earth as it is the same distance from the Sun and receives the same amount of energy.

Okay, so he apparently flunked thermodynamics. Receiving the same amount of energy is not the same as absorbing the same amount of it. And absorbing the same amount is not the same as reaching the same equilibrium temperature.

There is no atmosphere to generate a greenhouse effect to raise the temperature to the same level as Earth.

ROTFL!

Heat can stil be dissipated by radiation, that's how we get heat from the Sun.

Except that any heat from the film won't radiate any farther than the inside of the magazine. And since the magazine will absorb heat during its sporadic exposures to sunlight and conduct that heat to its inside surface via conduction and then radiate it to the film, everybody's happy.

In a vacuum a blast of gas will not cloud diffuse or billow out like an aerosol, it will form a jet.

Thus localizing its effect on the particulate.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-15, 02:14 PM
1 - I know the landing profile called from the descent engine to shut down at 1.8m (6’) from the surface, did that happen on every mission?

Armstrong didn't because he didn't hear Aldrin call out the contact light and so he didn't shut down the engine until he saw it himself. This meant the struts didn't compress fully and they had to see if they could jump back up to the first rung.

Some of the astronauts confided later that they were going to let the contact light stay lit for a second or so before killing the engine. There's something in pilot's nature about not wanting to shut down a perfectly good engine while still above the "runway". But they said they followed the profile in the simulators.

On a couple of missions you can see a jolt in the 16mm DAC footage as they drop the full planned distance.

2 – I agree with the reason that the pool of light behind Aldren in AS11-40-5902 and 5903 is reflection from the LM aft equipment bay.

What I can’t figure out is why are the MET tracks from Apollo 14 so bright

Because the soil has been artificially compacted and so forms a semblance of a uniform flat surface without much texture.

Remember that if you look anywhere but directly down-sun you're seeing a mix if lit and shaded sides of the texture. If the texture is mashed flat there's less shadow to see.

SpacedOut
2002-Jun-15, 02:18 PM
That makes sense - Thanks.

AstroMike
2002-Jun-15, 06:00 PM
On 2002-06-15 07:49, ZaphodBeeblebrox wrote:
This one Makes me Mad enough, to Spit Nails;

Or an impostor trying make up more credibility. Just like this guy:

nocomment1@excite.com
had this to say
Your conspiracy theory is true and accurate. I took the pictures in question and was paid off. Being what is called “street smart”. I left the US that day and have never returned. Retired NASA camera man Mike.

The real Neil Armstrong is quite offended by the accusations of the hoax theory, especially the Apollo 1 murder ones.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-15, 10:58 PM
Isn't the famous footprint photo acutally one of Aldrin's, and deliberately made to test the compaction ability of the soil?

Yes. AS11-40-5876 through AS11-40-5880 were taken for the benefit of soil mechanics experts and are of Aldrin's bootprint some distance away from the LM. In fact, he was specifically told to find some reasonably pristine regolith. 5879 was an inadvertent exposure, but then he thought it might make a good picture so he framed it a little more carefully and took 5880.

A lot of the apparent "cloudiness" is obviously motion blurring in the exposure.

Quite possibly. There's no way to distinguish motion-blurred particles from the frozen image of many small particles. There are two problems with the argument: the one you've noted where "cloud" can be variously interpreted, and the author's erroneous assumption of the ballistics.

So somebody from the very large nasa.gov domain clicked on his site. Doesn't mean anything does it?

Of course not. You can only infer a very little bit from the record of a web hit. But the author is all too eager to infer a cause.

I'd say this page was pretty low, but actually the low point was looking at the guestbook ...

I was amused to see someone agreeing with him who claimed to be an engineer. I would love to have a conversation with this person and see exactly how much engineering knowledge he has.

Donnie B.
2002-Jun-15, 11:21 PM
On 2002-06-15 18:58, JayUtah wrote:
I'd say this page was pretty low, but actually the low point was looking at the guestbook ...

I was amused to see someone agreeing with him who claimed to be an engineer. I would love to have a conversation with this person and see exactly how much engineering knowledge he has.

Maybe he drives a train... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

AstroMike
2002-Jun-16, 12:02 AM
On 2002-06-15 18:58, JayUtah wrote:
I was amused to see someone agreeing with him who claimed to be an engineer. I would love to have a conversation with this person and see exactly how much engineering knowledge he has.

I assume you mean this person:

Gary gjs4262@aol.com
had this to say
Being an engineer, I just really became aware of the moon potential hoax when it aired on 21 March 2001. It seems there is more proof on why it is a hoax than NASA can prove it is real. Very good view points on "points to prove". Most striking points are flag blowing, dust under rocket, various angles of shadows, rover blowing dust, you got me sold on a hoax!

or this person:

donalw@freesurf.ch
had this to say
So 30 years ago we were landing a vehicles 5 times the weight of a Toyota Land cruiser on the moon, and we seem to have problems landing a little craft on Mars today. As an engineer I look at the developments that have been made over the last 30 years. Considering where we have only got to today, the lunar landings have to be nothing more than a film directors most glorious hour. In engineering terms 30 years ago was prehistoric. The had almost zero computing power whatever about doing it once.. maybe but reproducing it 13 times….. Sound like a soap opera ! So where was all the money really spent !!! As a suggestion, could you add to each photo a link to the NASA page where the originals are held, allowing viewers to see the detail of this joke a little better ...

JayUtah
2002-Jun-16, 04:37 AM
I assume you mean this person:

Yes.

Gary gjs4262@aol.com
[b]Most striking points are flag blowing

An engineer who apparently knows nothing of inertia?

or this person:

Hadn't seen this one.

donalw@freesurf.ch
So 30 years ago we were landing a vehicles 5 times the weight of a Toyota Land cruiser on the moon ...

Are they making Land Cruisers out of papier-mache these days?

I don't have one of them, but I have a Ford SUV that weighs about 5,800 pounds dry, and that's almost exactly twice the landing weight in lunar gravity of the typical Apollo lunar module.

... and we seem to have problems landing a little craft on Mars today.

Gee, I wonder if there are any differences we could identify? How about, say, an onboard expert human pilot? Let this guy invent a car that can be driven at 200 mph into a garage by delayed remote control and then talk about the comparison.

In engineering terms 30 years ago was prehistoric.

Not really. The F-14 Tomcat and the Boeing B-747 were designed almost concurrently with the Apollo lunar module, and we still use that technology. I strongly dispute this opinion.

They had almost zero computing power whatever

Largely irrelevant. The Eiffel Tower is considered an engineering marvel, and it was done without computers at all. The Norden bombsight is an engineering marvel and it wasn't a computer. I used to have in my collection an old artillery trajectory computer from an army tank. It's a simple set of geared knobs and dials. Of course the M-1 Abrams uses very sophisticated techniques for aiming its weapon, but that doesn't mean we couldn't hit targets with knobs and dials.

You can tell this guy must be fairly young. People today can't imagine how we ever got along without our multi-gigahertz computers. Just because we do it with computers today doesn't mean it was impossible without computers. Just because engineering today is inseparable from computer-aided design, computer-aided manufacture, and computer-aided operation doesn't mean we didn't know how to do things before computers.

Besides, at any given point in time people have said that the computing power of yesteryear was practically useless. I can remember when the Intel 386 was going to take computing to a whole new level, and now we use that thing for microcontrollers.

So where was all the money really spent

Well, according to the public books of Grumman, Boeing, North American, and other companies, it was used to buy their hardware.

a link to the NASA page where the originals are held

The "originals" are not on a "page" anywhere. Another indication of relative youth. I'm not trying to rag on the young. But certain young people do rather humorously think they know everything. It's often interesting to hear them tell us how we couldn't do anything before the advent of certain modern conveniences.

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-16, 06:16 AM
On 2002-06-16 00:37, JayUtah wrote:
I used to have in my collection an old artillery trajectory computer from an army tank. It's a simple set of geared knobs and dials. Of course the M-1 Abrams uses very sophisticated techniques for aiming its weapon, but that doesn't mean we couldn't hit targets with knobs and dials.

When my unit in Germany transitioned from M60A3's to M1A1's in '87 we were more than a little upset that there was no simple ballistic sight in the new tanks at all. All previous tanks since WWII had carried a simple telescope with range reticles for each ammo type as a backup sight. Our complaint was how do you hit something if the turret has lost power? Simple still has it's advantages at times.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-16, 07:16 AM
The LM RCS had a sort of backup whereby the hand controller could be switched to directly control the RCS jet solenoid valves, bypassing the RCS controller and the computer. Even in normal operation there was a "hardover" mode where the RHC's maximum deflection directly fired the appropriate RCS jets.

Not helpful in a power failure, granted, but the notion is still the same whether it's in a combat system or an experimental spacecraft. The capacity to degrade gracefully into somewhat less desirable but still operational mode is what reliability is made of.

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2002-Jun-16, 08:24 AM
On 2002-06-16 00:37, JayUtah wrote:
The "originals" are not on a "page" anywhere. Another indication of relative youth. I'm not trying to rag on the young. But certain young people do rather humorously think they know everything. It's often interesting to hear them tell us how we couldn't do anything before the advent of certain modern conveniences.


Yeah, this is One of The Many, Stupid Arguments, that The Holocaust Deniers, use!

Not that I wouldn't like to Be Told, "It was All a Bad Dream," but I still don't know How Many People my Family Lost, Over There, and History can't Be Remade, just By Wishing, but Still . . .

AstroMike
2002-Jul-11, 04:19 AM
I posted a comment in his guestbook saying his site has been refuted here. Let's see if he or anybody else replies.