PDA

View Full Version : Debunking site...



Simon
2002-Jan-01, 07:44 PM
Here's a site that has a very good debunking page, with several things I've never heard before. More importantly though it has a great "orbital physics for beginners" section and some really good definitions of various space hardware, including a list of various launch vehicles and a list of all manned launches. Definately a great reference site.

The Link (http://users.commkey.net/Braeunig/space/index.htm)
http://users.commkey.net/Braeunig/space/index.htm

Donnie B.
2002-Jan-02, 08:11 PM
By the way, I made a quick stop into the Cleveland Museum of Natural History over the holidays. They have a temporary exhibition of manned spaceflight items, including a lot of nice color photographs, models of spacecraft, and the like.

My favorite artifact was a real engine from (I believe) the descent stage of a LM. Quite a piece of hardware, but there was no detailed description of its components and function.

It's worth a look if you're in the area. If you're like me, it's always helpful to see a real nuts-and-bolts piece of hardware to bring things down to earth... as it were.

JayUtah
2002-Jan-02, 08:42 PM
Small aerospace museums can often hold unsung treasures.

The LM descent engine was quite remarkable for its ability to vary the thrust. Unfortunately this feature isn't widely in demand for most space applications. It's easier to compute for fixed thrust.

The engine used in the LM ascent stage was used as an upper stage booster engine until the late 1980s. Pretty standard stuff. The Delta launch vehicles use Aerojet's copy of this same engine, rated at about the same thrust. This is nice to know because there are those who argue that the ascent stage couldn't have been propelled by a rocket because there's no plume visible in the video footage. It's convenient to be able to show them pictures of identical engines on other rockets firing in a vacuum with no visible plume either.

SeanF
2002-Jan-02, 09:18 PM
On 2002-01-02 15:42, JayUtah wrote:
It's convenient to be able to show them pictures of identical engines on other rockets firing in a vacuum with no visible plume either.


Gosh, Jay, don't you know that all spaceflight is faked, and they just faked those newer pictures the same way so they'd be consistent with that "no visible plume" malarkey they concocted when they screwed up on Apollo? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

JayUtah
2002-Jan-03, 03:17 PM
they'd be consistent with that "no visible plume" malarkey they concocted when they screwed up on Apollo?

(giggle) Sure, but how do you explain Titan II launches? They use the same fuel mix and don't produce a very visible plume when they're only a couple hundred feet off the ground. Oh, let me guess. Way up high in the clouds there's a helicopter pulling the rocket up by a wire. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Simon
2002-Jan-04, 06:29 AM
But it's impossible for rockets to fly anyway, because in vacuum there's nothing for the jet to push against!
/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

ToSeek
2002-Jan-04, 02:49 PM
Geez, you guys, hush up, you're giving the whole thing away! What if a bunch of HBers saw this thread?

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Code Red
2002-Jan-11, 12:26 PM
Besides, above a certain height, the rocket would shatter the crystalline spheres, bringing the Moon and Venus crashing down around our ears. Those things have got to be a few hundred feet across!!

ToSeek
2002-Jan-11, 12:59 PM
On 2002-01-11 07:26, Code Red wrote:
Besides, above a certain height, the rocket would shatter the crystalline spheres, bringing the Moon and Venus crashing down around our ears. Those things have got to be a few hundred feet across!!


I actually read an sf novel a few years ago that featured a space voyage in an Aristotelian universe (crystalline spheres and all). I don't remember the author, but I think the title was Celestial Matters.

Squirm
2002-Jan-11, 03:52 PM
Jay: Oh, let me guess. Way up high in the clouds there's a helicopter pulling the rocket up by a wire.

With the LEM in mind, it could be that they were raised/lowered by a very similar operating mechanism to what was constructed at the Lunar Landing Research Facility (http://www.night-sun.co.uk/images/other/llrf.jpg).

It could be a most excellent bit of deception, very much like when you are standing on a hill or mountain near to the edge of a drop. For example, if you frame the picture in such a way as to exclude the area immediately at foot, the actual severity of the drop becomes unknown, and thus the resulting image is often very suggestive. Almost as though the drop you are teetering over is considerably greater than it actually is. The same could be true of the assent stage, as if the camera were to pan up a fraction more then a portion of the lift mechanism would be revealed and with it the illusion shattered.

JayUtah
2002-Jan-11, 09:17 PM
How about just noting that the engine in question makes no visible plume in a vacuum, therefore there's no need to postulate any farfetched usage of large gantry cranes? You forget this whole point is based on the near-complete ignorance of conspiracy theorists on how the engine in question works.

Zandermann
2002-Jan-12, 02:41 AM
I actually read an sf novel a few years ago that featured a space voyage in an Aristotelian universe (crystalline spheres and all). I don't remember the author, but I think the title was Celestial Matters.yes...Celestial Matters by Richard Garfinkle...definitely worth a look for sf/alternate history fans

JayUtah
2002-Jan-12, 03:21 PM
I have always maintained that if the more far-fetched "alternate history" enthusiasts would just turn their hand to novels or screenwriting, they'd be millionaires. There's no question that their theories capture the imagination. It's only when they try to establish them as fact that people scorn them.

I think that's one of the big allures of conspiracy theories. They make the world seem a whole lot more exciting than it really is. It's just a big, elaborate version of the "what-if" game.