the fools on earth could have contaminated it with spittle by speaking. after all the fools either contaminated it before the moon making them fools or after the moon making them fools. NASA alway looking foolish no matter what. that should be the motto
PARA TAPAR EL QUILOMBO DE WIKILEAKS SACARON A LA LUZ LO DE LA BACTERIA EXTRATERRESTRE...? POBRES YANKIS, SON CADA DIA MAS PREDECIBLES, TIENEN MIEDO QUE SE CONOSCAN TODOS LOS CIVILES QUE MATAN EN "SUS GUERRAS"? O QUE SON LOS IDEOLOGOS DE TODOS LOS GOLPES DE ESTADO QUE HAY EN PAISES TERCERMUNDISTAS? MIREN QUE A ESTO YA LO SABEMOS TODOS...MIERRRDAAAAA..... QUE LES ANDA PASANDO? YA NO PUEDEN COMPRAR MAS INTELIGENCIA? HAGANLEN UN FAVOR A LA HUMANIDAD Y MATENSEN... GENOCIDAS Y LADRONES DE MIERRRDAAA
the saying is; "a good craftsman never blames his tools"
Is that what your supervisor says to you when you tell him your mop just ain't moppin’ right!
I am not a typist so the phrase does not apply me, I am poor at typing at the best of times, with big hands, using a smaller than I am used to keyboard :-(
Get over it
Also fortunately for me I am not a complete nerd like you and I have to look at the keys when I type so I miss most of my mistakes especially when I am drunk :-)
@claytonstarbar Of course the phrase applies directly to you. You blame your keyboard for your lousy typing, yet you do have eyes to proofread your typing, do you not?
Is it also your keyboard's fault that you can't express a rational, meaningful thought?
So...once again, what's Apollo's problem with General Relativity?
@claytonstarbar I keep on "banging" about relativity because YOU brought it up, alleging that it somehow disproved Apollo. When I called your bluff, you demanded some numbers. When I gave them to you, you went silent.
Relativity didn't significantly affect Apollo one way or another, that's been my point all along. If you feel differently, prove it.
@claytonstarbar Ha. Now you've moved into telling deliberate lies. I use the word 'lie' very sparingly, even though it's a favorite of the hoaxheads. But here it's appropriate.
Then again, you may not even realize that time dilation is a relativistic concept. I must remember: never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity...
@stalkervision Start with the Wikipedia entry. TWR has gotten some publicity because Bill Gates has invested in it. Aside from the enriched U to get it started, it can burn depleted uranium; there are huge amounts of that in the world. A single fueling can last 60 years. It might even burn spent fuel from regular reactors.
It does look interesting but it's still on the drawing boards.
It's not my problem you can not tell the difference between yourn arse and a hole in the ground, but your are doing quite well for a deluded security gaurd, do you work for the same firm as stbays?
Q. Has all the matter in the universe been acounted for, quantified and catalouged?
Q. How was time dilation factored into project Apollo?
@claytonstarbar Never been a security guard. You must have an awfully limited view of the world to not know that security guards aren't the only people who use hand-held radios.
Relativity was not significant in Apollo operations as its effects were "down in the noise": the distances too small, the velocities too low and the durations too short. The laser ranging experiments can certainly observe its effects, though.
what utter bollock you are talking, if there is a signifiact enought differenc from sea level to the top of a cooling tower several hunderd metres, just how was it not an important factor on the way and on the moon?
And admit it all your so called laws are just theories.
You are holding a walky -talky in a museum, I have only seen securtiy gaurds and maintenance guys doing that, are the the janitor then?
The earth's gravitational redshift is *tiny*. It can be measured over small altitude differences with very accurate atomic clocks, but it was just not an operational issue in Apollo. Regular tracking removed the effect along with much larger errors due to noise.
The gravity redshift on earth's equator is 0.00000000069535. At 1km it's 0.00000000069524. Neither is very much.
@claytonstarbar In general relativity, time dilation causes a red/blue shift when a stationary clock is viewed from another location with a different gravitational potential. GPS satellite clocks viewed from the earth appear to run fast (blue shift). An observer in space will see clocks on earth run slow (red shift).
Spend some time reading up on this stuff, because you're obviously completely confused. Just grabbing buzzwords from Google won't do it.
@claytonstarbar Gravitational red/blue shifts can be predicted just with conservation of energy. A photon climbing out of a gravitational well loses energy, so its frequency decreases (red shift). A photon falling into a gravity well gains energy, so its frequency increases (blue shift).
@claytonstarbar You really ARE innumerate, aren't you? Just because relativistic effects can be detected with carefully designed scientific experiments doesn't mean they were a significant engineering or operational factor in the Apollo program. They weren't.
Go learn the basics, compute the numbers and see for yourself that they were insignificant compared to the other error sources in Apollo guidance and tracking.
@claytonstarbar Sorry, but I'm not going to waste my time on analyses you won't even begin to understand. But I'll reconsider if you explain to me exactly why you think relativistic effects should have affected the Apollo missions.
The fact that you even brought it up shows you don't have a clue about any of this stuff.
@claytonstarbar But then again, the mere fact that you think Apollo was faked was proof enough that you haven't a clue about even the most basic principles of physics, math and engineering.
@claytonstarbar Terribly sorry to disappoint you. Debunked almost 2 years ago: v=L9mYWWHREag
And I didn't say anything about adjusting LEO satellite clocks. GPS uses a high 12 hour orbit. The effect is only noticeable because of how GPS works, and you might be terribly surprised to learn that Apollo predated GPS.
Ever thought of using a spell checker? Or laying off the sauce when you type?
LunaTuna is a bigger idiot than you, he/or the DVD producers could have air brushed out those wires :-)
Are you saying that satellites in LEOs & GEOs are not affected by gravitational time dilation?
Just point out those typos and spelling mistakes if it makes you feel big, I rarely even read what I write I just type and go, you can spend hours on these comments going over and over in the vain hope of appearing intelligent, go for it!
@claytonstarbar Yes, I know what "debunked" means. Apparently, you don't and that's too bad. You must have missed the part where LunerTuner points out that the version without the scratches has much better color balance and detail, showing that it's a better copy of the original.
And yeah, it's quite apparent you don't bother to read what you write.
At least we can agree on one thing my typing is awful, especially with this small netbook keyboard, the shop servicing my note book is REALLY screwing me around replacing my screen they are even more annoying than you ;-) LOL
If I spell the words "sympathetic" & "current" correctly will you answer the question, or will you simply keep looking for other ways to misdirect the argument?
@claytonstarbar You have to EXPLAIN the argument first. How does relativity supposedly disprove the reality of the Apollo missions? How was it supposedly not taken into account?
My argument is; if the effects of time dilation are noticeable on a cooling tower just a few hundred metres up due to a slightly weaker gravity. It would follow the weaker the gravity the more effects of time dilation. Therefore on the inter-lunar coast when they would be at very low Gs and on the moon 1/6th of a G the effects would be even more significant.
I want to know how this was factored into project apolloo?
@claytonstarbar Your reasoning is incorrect. The gravitational red/blueshift is strongest where the gravitational field is strongest. As you climb out of the gravity well, the incremental change becomes smaller and smaller. E.g., the gravitational time dilation observed on the earth's surface from lunar distance is practically the same as from an object at infinite distance. The formula is
where T0 is local clock rate at radius R, T is clock rate of an infinite altitude clock observed at radius R, c is speed of light, GM is gravitational parameter for planet (G = gravitational constant, M = planet mass). As R goes to infinity, T/T0 goes to 1, as expected. For R = earth radius, T and T0 differ by about 1 part in 10^9. So a clock at any finite altitude will differ from an earth surface clock by less than 1 part in 10^9.
@claytonstarbar Either find the textbook passage from which I supposedly "parroted" this information, or stop claiming that it was. You're starting to annoy me.
@claytonstarbar And now please explain to me how relativity supposedly made Apollo impossible. Or please admit that you were grasping at straws, making up reasons that you thought would be too complex for anyone to debunk.
It *is* easy to dream up hoax claims. It takes a lot more work to thoroughly shoot them down.
That is rich coming from a total wazzock like you
See if you can spot typo you dweeb
I know Apollo was fake as I have seen the wires, bubbles and the rest of the ridiculous TV show
Even the rocks were proven fakes
Most of space-monkeys are freemasons the top guy at mission control was the brother of the top douche. Freaks that dress up like twats, prance around like faggots giving each other funny handshakes, and swear to keep their brother secrets on fear of death.
@claytonstarbar Wires and bubbles? I guess you can see whatever you want to see even when it's not there.
As for the rocks, I have yet to see a single qualified geologist agree with you.
Look, just like Jarrah you're probably really disappointed you never became an astronaut. Neither did most people. Doesn't mean you have to play sour grapes.
So I'm still waiting for your explanation of how relativity "disproves" Apollo. Or were you simply not expecting someone to call your bluff?
@claytonstarbar As far as I know, it's an open question whether the bacteria found inside the Surveyor camera survived on the moon or were introduced through contamination after the camera was returned to earth by the Apollo 12 crew.
How is that relevant to the fact that it WAS returned by the Apollo 12 crew? Please explain; the connection, if any, escapes me.
@claytonstarbar "Pretty sure?" Why, have you conducted the experiment?
Again you reveal your remarkably poor logical reasoning skills by setting up a false dichotomy. The third alternative explanation is simply that the bacteria in question came from contamination after the camera was returned from the moon.
@claytonstarbar What "story" are you referring to? And what "alibi"?
The basic facts: in November 1969, the Apollo 12 crew landed near the Surveyor III spacecraft that had landed on April 20, 1967. They removed its TV camera and returned it to earth.
Bacteria was found inside that camera. Whether or not it survived on the moon or was accidentally introduced after its return is immaterial to the reality of those two missions no matter how confused you may be, or how confusing you try to be.
What story? Your story, the one you made up to fill in the gaps created by the bacteria.
It would be quite an easy experiment to prove if bacteria can or cannot survive on the moon, they could start with putting it in a vacuum chamber then heat it up and cool it from -150 to +150C for 2 years.
Do you think it would survive?
And your alternative story that it got in there after the came back, okay then where did it happen when, how, who put it there?
@claytonstarbar Yes, that would be a worthwhile experiment; for once we actually agree. Re contamination, the bacteria in question, Streptococcus mitis, is very widespread in the environment. Most of us carry it on the skin where it causes no problems as long as the skin is unbroken.
See the Wikipedia article "Reports of Streptococcus mitis on the moon" for all the details and references. You don't have to remain quite so unenlightened, you know; Wikipedia is your friend.
@claytonstarbar Don't ask me, I'm an engineer, not a microbiologist.
I'm still waiting for your explanation of how general relativity supposedly refutes the reality of the Apollo missions. You obviously didn't understand the subject, so I'm not surprised you're evading the question now.
Have been asking you one simple question for ages and you side step and misdirect continually even to the point of pretending the question does not exist.
Now answer; what is the moral of the Emperor’s New Clothes?
And why do you think the Emperor falls for the weavers lines?
You and Gish are both sophist creationists, blind followers of a faith; you have far more in common with him that I do ;-)
@claytonstarbar Oh Christ, not this "Emperor's New Clothes" bullcrap again. I though we already established that I have ABSOLUTELY no idea what answer you want.
There's more than a slight difference between creationists like Gish and those who have studied the Apollo program in considerable depth.
@claytonstarbar How little you know me! I'm an agnostic/atheist, but I'm still entitled to use common English expressions.
We have only established that you don't like my take on the Emperor's New Clothes, nothing more. Not surprising, as the fable is a wonderful metaphor for the woo-woos like you who pretend to see evidence of Apollo fakery that just isn't there.
@claytonstarbar And I'm still waiting for your explanation for why General Relativity supposedly disproves Apollo.
It's fairly obvious that you were simply bluffing. You had no idea what you were talking about, but you figured that you could sound erudite by invoking the word, and no one would know enough to shoot you down. Yet a simple calculation shows the magnitude of the effect to be far too tiny to affect Apollo's navigation methods.
I can't speak for Jarrah, but I did want to be an astronaut, I also wanted to be a pirate captain, does not mean I don’t think Jonny Depp is real does it you supercilious ass?
@claytonstarbar Oh, I am reasonably sure that Johnny (note spelling) Depp is a real person: an American actor born in 1963. I'm also quite sure that pirates also exist, unfortunately; at the moment, most seem to be Somalian.
As for fake moon rocks: by your reasoning, the fact that we once found a fake dollar bill in the lunchroom vending machine proves that US currency does not exist. I think you'll find plenty of geologists who have examined Apollo samples and concluded they're real.
I think it is you that's is still affected by your childhood fantasies and it is you that wanted to be an astronaut but did not have "the right stuff" and settled for working for an air & space museum as a janitor.
BTW I am English and they do not really have a space program let alone any astronauts and certainly not when I was a boy so it was not an option for me, but it must have hard on you, knowing you fellow countrymen could :-(
@claytonstarbar I say again, either find the textbook from which I "parroted" my material or stop making the claim.
I know you can't comprehend the possibility that anyone might actually know what they're talking about when you haven't a clue.
Just as you can't comprehend how NASA could go to the moon when you haven't a clue how they did it. This may come as a crushing blow, but you're not the smartest bloke on the planet. But if you concede it, you might actually learn something.
@claytonstarbar I'm STILL waiting for your explanation of how general relativity supposedly made Apollo impossible...or an admission that you just made it all up without a clue.
@claytonstarbar So you admit it then: you just made up that relativity and Apollo stuff without knowing what the hell you were talking about. That much was obvious.
I also find it absolutely hilarious that you should think Freemasonry is some sort of super-secret faction running the world behind the scenes. My grandfather who died almost 40 years ago was a Mason. As far as I could tell, it was a grownup version of a boy's secret treehouse club.
@claytonstarbar And it's funnier still that you keep using offensive English slang without realizing that has absolutely no meaning to an American. It's a pretty good illustration of your limited, pedestrian view of the world.
Why don't you broaden your horizons a little? There's a lot of cool stuff going on outside your own walled-off world.
I am English therefore I use English slang, what nationality of slang do you think I should use then, you septic wanker or should I only American so you can understand?
Would you like me to call you a "mothersucker" and "my negro" at the beginning and end of every sentence, will that make you feel more at home, "home boy"?
@claytonstarbar My knowledge of freemasonry begins and ends with knowing that my grandfather was one. As far as I know, it's a secret drinking club that didn't like Catholics. Why are you obsessed with them? Did they reject you when you tried to join?
Received Standard ("BBC") English without UK slang will do nicely. Less opportunity for misunderstandings that way.
@claytonstarbar Gee, I really couldn't say since the LM *was* extensively tested before the first lunar landing. Besides all the ground tests and static firings, there was the unmanned Apollo 5 flight, the earth orbital Apollo 9 flight and the lunar orbital Apollo 10 flight.
@claytonstarbar No, the chances were quite good given the exhaustive and methodical testing. With *any* new aircraft or spacecraft there is *always* a first takeoff and a first landing. But that doesn't mean they're unprepared for.
You have simply nothing that says otherwise other than your own ignorant biases.
I hardly call the most improbable event in history occurring over and over without hitch, and then never being replicated since, ignorant biases, it is called good judgment you cunt.
@claytonstarbar Without hitch? Really? Like Apollo 13? The computer alarms on Apollo 11? The lightning strike and burned out TV camera on Apollo 12? Apollo 14's faulty abort button? The CSM problems that nearly aborted the Apollo 16 landing?
I'd say they got that far thanks to good engineering and extensive ground and flight testing.
If you have trouble understanding how they did this, just remember: they were a LOT smarter than you. I know, I know, that doesn't say much.
I am talking about landing and taking off from the moon and you know it cunt, did 13 land and take off from the moon? No, so button your mug it you utter fool.
I was joking you pleb, sorry forgot you were a septic, you are lost without the canned laughter, I will type *laugh now* after the next gag just for you and your fellow countrymen :-(
@claytonstarbar Ah, so that explains it! I couldn't understand how anyone could seriously argue that Apollo was hoaxed, that the floating debris seen during EVAs are bubbles, or that my grandfather's drinking buddies are some sort of massive force for world evil. Now I understand that you were joking. Not that your jokes were especially funny or anything.
hello wuzzock, I have eventually received my note book back from the service centre.
What is the likelihood of your granddads bum chums making up the majority of the space-monkeys and key staff at mission control, and you being a 3rd generation and obsessed with Apollo.
100% chance you are all brainwashed idiots that believe anything an authority figure tells you, well as long as you get to prance around and feel important.
That's why you call on Christ in your lowest moments too
It is not a social club it is a SECRET SOCIETY for faggots that like playing dress up.
Funny how you know all the intricate details of project apollo, you probably know Neil's shoe size and star sign, and you are a 3rd generation prancer and so were all the key people in the project, it is a well known FACT.
There is no cure for being a stupid faggot you will just have to live with it :-(
You could try some electrodes on your balls triggered when you look at underage boys :-(....
@claytonstarbar Okay, fine. So it's a secret society for boys that like playing dress up. But given how my grandfather used to talk, I seriously doubt they had very many, ahem, faggots.
So why are you obsessed with a secret society for boys that like playing dress up? Did they reject you when you tried to join?
I am not obsessing I am simply making an observation, that the number of prancing fags involved in project apollo is disproportionate to the population.
So is the number of US presidents, everyone knows there are Masonic symbols on the dollar bill and the architecture of Washington DC.
The very nature of the organisation is to protect the secret that they use occult technology to enslave the minds of the fools that join.
I don't believe in god or magic I am not mason material :-)
@claytonstarbar You know, that HAS to be the answer. Nothing else makes any sense. You once tried to get into the Freemasons and they rejected you. That crushed your ego, and you're still really pissed off.
And obsessed. It's festered so much that you're now under the delusion that these guys secretly control the whole world. No, it can't possibly be YOUR fault that you're such a loser. It can only be because the Freemasons are pulling all the strings to make you lose!
@claytonstarbar Sore spot? No. More like my funny bone. I know it took me a while, but I really did figure it out, didn't I? The Freemasons wouldn't let you join, and now you're out for revenge. I sure don't see any other reason why you're so obsessed with them.
@claytonstarbar Your problem has to do with the definition of the word "noticeable". For general relativity to be 'noticeable' across just a few hundred meters, a very elaborate experiment had to be designed and carefully executed. If you use ordinary wristwatches, the effect would certainly NOT be noticeable.
And Apollo's tracking methods were far less sensitive to the effects of relativity than the GPS. Very different designs.
@claytonstarbar Of course satellites in both LEO and GEO, like any object in a gravitational field, are affected by gravitational time dilation. But the farther away they are from the earth, the smaller the effect. The effect is greatest on the surface of the earth.
Now please explain to me why you think relativity was somehow an obstacle to the Apollo missions, or admit you haven't a clue but just made it up.
@claytonstarbar Here's a hint: GPS users do not transmit, but Apollo used "two-way" tracking; the ground sent up a carrier and ranging signal that was turned around by a coherent transponder. This method does not require an atomic clock on the spacecraft and is inherently resistant to errors, including the very small ones introduced by relativity.
Strictly speaking, GPS is also resistant to errors thanks to its ground monitoring stations. Relativity shows up as a clock bias in the ephemeris.
The relativity clock adjustments to the GPS satellites simply reduce the clock error in the satellite's ephemeris (the numbers broadcast by each satellite that describe its precise orbit and clock errors).
Without those adjustments the system would still work fine but there'd be a bias in the clock frequency error that would require more bits to transmit. And the nav message is only 50 bits/sec.
I am not looking for hints regarding GPS, can you just answer if you can how much faster is time on the inter-lunar coast and the surface of the moon compared to standard Earth time?
@claytonstarbar Okay, here's your answer, for all the good it'll do you. As observed from the Earth's surface, a clock on an Apollo spacecraft in transit to the moon will appear to run about 1.0000000007 times faster than a clock on earth. The altitude is so high that it might as well be infinite.
@claytonstarbar By the way, the rate offset between TT, terrestrial time and TCB, time at the solar system barycenter as published by the IAU, is only 1.0000000155051976772.
Now if you can't understand that, I can only suggest you stop pretending that you do.
How fast is time running at the mid way point between the Earth and Moon's gravitational field and actually on the moon compared to standard Earth time?
Spare me the sarcasm and petty put downs, just provide and answer, or else please be quite.
@claytonstarbar No, the correct term is center of mass. Look it up.
You still haven't answered my question: how do you think relativity invalidates the Apollo missions? Or are you just throwing around big words to sound cool?
@claytonstarbar I asked you how you would have expected relativity to affect Apollo for a reason. I want you to demonstrate that you actually understand the concepts, that you're doing more than stringing together phrases you've found in Wikipedia. Presumably you are claiming that relativistic effects should have been seen on Apollo but were not. It is up to you to demonstrate that, as I've already explained their magnitudes were far too small.
The fact you are not answering the question, but choose to attack the questioner, means you are a sophist douche bag :-(
The fact, you are not answering it means you can't for some reason, the most likely is you just can't because you are a supercilious ass that works as a museum custodian :-)
@claytonstarbar I'm happy to research and answer sincere questions from people who want to learn, as that's an opportunity for me to learn as well.
But that's not the case here. You have Googled a few fancy-sounding phrases and strung them together into questions that don't even make sense. And you'd pretend that's my fault.
But I'll give you another chance. Explain exactly HOW you'd expect relativity to affect an Apollo flight and I'll compute the magnitude of the effects.
@stalkervision Speaking of nuclear reprocessing, there's been some publicity about a "traveling wave" reactor. It breeds and burns its own plutonium without need for reprocessing or even a refueling shutdown. The name comes from the way it slowly burns a fuel load from one end to the other. Pu fission (burning) occurs in one region, breeding Pu from U-238 in another. It looks really interesting.
@stalkervision Complete water recycling would be an absolute must in any long-duration spacecraft. The ISS tries to capture and reuse water, but it's not a closed cycle so they still need resupply. I wish they put more emphasis on testing closed-cycle life support.
Solar sails are one form of propulsion that doesn't require propellant, yes. But also very slow, and limited to the inner solar system.
And yes, that was Project Orion, using bombs to propel spaceships.
@stalkervision Ion propulsion still requires a propellant. Xenon is the current favorite. Ion engines eject their propellants at extremely high velocity compared to chemical rockets so much less propellant is needed for a given delta-V. But a propellant is still needed. Also, ion engines have far lower thrust/weight ratios than chemical rockets so they're for long trips when you have plenty of time.
Cooling by sublimating water is completely impractical for long trips.
@stalkervision Energy alone will not drive a spacecraft. You also need propellant. Chemical rocket propellants serve the dual role of storing energy and providing the reaction mass against which the rocket pushes. You can generate the energy some other way (solar panels, nuclear reactor) but you still must transfer that energy to some mass and eject it out the back at high speed. Otherwise you don't go anywhere.
@stalkervision Well, do the calculations. You'll find that every spacecraft that has explored the inner solar system has used solar power to do so, and it is nonetheless a seriously limited commodity. Spacecraft that explore the outer solar system must do so with nuclear power, which in the form of RTGs has been even more limited. Reactors would be a significant improvement.
We're also nowhere near having a wholly self-contained life support system that doesn't need external food supplies.
@stalkervision Indeed they would. Unfortunately, the laws of physics have a way of getting in the way. And those laws state that short of the original Project Orion, which would have detonated nuclear bombs to lift a spaceship off the earth, there's simply no way to get something the size of a cruise ship into space.
@stalkervision Well, there are a variety of views on this that all have merit. Some want to go directly to Mars. Some want to go back to the moon first. Some want to go to an asteroid for both scientific reasons (to look at and sample one close up) and to mine it for use in space flight.
One good argument for the moon is that it can be reached in just a few days and a shelter quickly built; a direct flight to either Mars or an asteroid risks unshielded exposure to a major solar event.
@stalkervision I'd love to go to Mars too, but you must crawl before you can walk, and walk before you can run. Mars isn't just a quick run, it's a marathon.
There's much to be said for going back to the moon, especially if we can mine it for materials to reduce the mass we lift off the earth. It's true that whatever we mine has to more than make up for the extra cost (propellant, etc) in landing on the moon and leaving again. An alternative "space mine" is an asteroid. Much lower gravity.
No question, shielding will be required for any long manned interplanetary flight. You try to use existing structures, like tanks of propellant, oxygen and water as much as possible, but if that's not enough you'll either have to bring up more mass from earth, which is very expensive, or get it in space.
An asteroid is one possibility, the moon another. Both require more propellant. We can get O2 from the moon, H2 maybe from H2O at the poles.
We already know how to produce oxygen on the moon so we really don't have to send it from earth. Aluminum, iron, calcium, silicon, sodium, titanium and other useful elements are also abundant on the moon. Hydrogen was thought to be scarce until the discovery of water near the poles. But even if we have to launch H2 from earth, at least it's a lot lighter than sending water.
@stalkervision It's a two-step process. Liquid water seeps out the small pores in the sublimator plate. Some immediately vaporizes, carrying away enough heat to freeze the rest to ice, plugging the holes. As waste heat sublimates the ice, more water seeps out and the process repeats. It's self-regulating.
The overall effect turns liquid water into a gas (steam) that carries away waste heat. It's very effective and requires little power, but uses precious water. OK for short visits only.
@stalkervision IMO, what a practical manned moon base really needs is in-situ resource utilization: using lunar materials to reduce what you bring from earth.
Because its goal was strictly to beat the Russians to the moon, not to stay and do science, Apollo was exactly the opposite. For cooling, the LM and PLSS boiled precious water to space. For attitude control the LM and CSM used thrusters instead of reaction wheels. They didn't even use solar power!
@stalkervision I don't see that a permanent station in earth orbit is especially useful as a waystation to the moon. Any given station is unlikely to be in the optimum orbit for a lunar transfer trajectory.
Earth Orbit Rendezvous, assembling a moon-bound ship in earth orbit, did make sense as a way to avoid having to develop really huge rockets. Constellation was conceived as EOR + LOR but I think it should have used more flights of smaller rockets.
@stalkervision The main problems with long-term lunar stays are a) it gets a lot hotter at solar noon b) nights get really cold and last 2 weeks c) you need more consumables (oxygen, food, water, power, LiOH) than a LM could carry and d) the longer you stay, the greater the risk of being caught in a solar proton storm.
And that's why Apollo always landed in the early morning and their longest visit was only 3 days. They didn't have to solve any of these problems.
Why do you guys make up all this answers? Great fantasy? Great imagination? Lazyness?
Just google for "conan the bacterium"and you will have some answers. If you guys always say something like science will win or science first, why do you only use your fantasy? Just investigate
Why don't you like the answers Gijs? Why don't you try to understand what ApolloWasReal states in his comments? It's very hard to come up with non-ionizing or ionizing radiation by imagination. Like it's very hard to learn about Newton's laws, Electronics, Chemistry or Thermal Radiation using lazyness. It's far more easier to become a frantic conspiracist because one is unable to understand or comprehend, deliberately or not.
@Rob260259 actually I was referring to this part of awr's previous comment.
Recent findings call into question the original discovery of bacteria in the Surveyor III camera. It's possible the bacteria got there after the camera was cut off the spacecraft by the Apollo 12 astronauts.
But now you mention it: according to you and awr the scientists who investigated and tested "conan" Also have no clue of different types of radiation.
@stalkervision Loaded with radiation? Please explain. What kind of radiation? Ionizing or non-ionizing? If particulate, what kinds and what energy levels? What mechanisms produce it? What are the hourly absorbed doses through standard amounts of shielding? Enquiring minds want to know!
Hint: there's a vast difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation.
Recent findings call into question the original discovery of bacteria in the Surveyor III camera. It's possible the bacteria got there after the camera was cut off the spacecraft by the Apollo 12 astronauts. The subject still appears open. See this Wikipedia article (and its references):
@awe130 Surveyor I mission report. Part II - Scientific data and results. Page 45 states...
"In fact, the spacecraft was, to the greatest extent possible, thermally isolated from the lunar surface to provide operation at the same temperature in flight and during daytime on the surface"
Do you ever do more than 30 seconds research for your videos awe?
You are funny, I am not claiming to have knowledge, you do on the other hand, by reacting with solutions for NASA. You are an "Apollo creationist" that means from this point on you are always right.
Answers by rob and you are not alowed to question? I see where your come from ApolloWasReal can both of you be called two "Apollo creationists" how make the Apollo project in a religion.
the fools on earth could have contaminated it with spittle by speaking. after all the fools either contaminated it before the moon making them fools or after the moon making them fools. NASA alway looking foolish no matter what. that should be the motto
datzfast 10 months ago
PARA TAPAR EL QUILOMBO DE WIKILEAKS SACARON A LA LUZ LO DE LA BACTERIA EXTRATERRESTRE...? POBRES YANKIS, SON CADA DIA MAS PREDECIBLES, TIENEN MIEDO QUE SE CONOSCAN TODOS LOS CIVILES QUE MATAN EN "SUS GUERRAS"? O QUE SON LOS IDEOLOGOS DE TODOS LOS GOLPES DE ESTADO QUE HAY EN PAISES TERCERMUNDISTAS? MIREN QUE A ESTO YA LO SABEMOS TODOS...MIERRRDAAAAA..... QUE LES ANDA PASANDO? YA NO PUEDEN COMPRAR MAS INTELIGENCIA? HAGANLEN UN FAVOR A LA HUMANIDAD Y MATENSEN... GENOCIDAS Y LADRONES DE MIERRRDAAA
cortebase 1 year ago
" Emporores New Clothes is all about (if yiou do just explaine the norale)"
LOL x 10
It is making me cringe even more than any of you.
I like this net book but the freaking keyboard is just too small :-)
LOL
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar Ever hear the expression "It's a poor craftsman who blames his tools"?
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
the saying is; "a good craftsman never blames his tools"
Is that what your supervisor says to you when you tell him your mop just ain't moppin’ right!
I am not a typist so the phrase does not apply me, I am poor at typing at the best of times, with big hands, using a smaller than I am used to keyboard :-(
Get over it
Also fortunately for me I am not a complete nerd like you and I have to look at the keys when I type so I miss most of my mistakes especially when I am drunk :-)
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar Of course the phrase applies directly to you. You blame your keyboard for your lousy typing, yet you do have eyes to proofread your typing, do you not?
Is it also your keyboard's fault that you can't express a rational, meaningful thought?
So...once again, what's Apollo's problem with General Relativity?
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
I told you already just type and go!
And then cringe from time too to time :-(
Typing is not my trade, as it is yours dear troll/janitor banging away at the keys night and moppin’ all day.
Why do you keep banging on about relativity, do you think it sounds cool?
Tell me how does the theory of relativity prove apolloo was real?
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar I keep on "banging" about relativity because YOU brought it up, alleging that it somehow disproved Apollo. When I called your bluff, you demanded some numbers. When I gave them to you, you went silent.
Relativity didn't significantly affect Apollo one way or another, that's been my point all along. If you feel differently, prove it.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
Comment removed
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ApolloWasReal
Dont lie, I have never mentioned relativity, you did you ass.
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar Ha. Now you've moved into telling deliberate lies. I use the word 'lie' very sparingly, even though it's a favorite of the hoaxheads. But here it's appropriate.
Then again, you may not even realize that time dilation is a relativistic concept. I must remember: never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity...
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
Theories pertaining to time dilation predate relativity.
Every time you bring relativty up I have said I am not talking about it, you are such a lying cunt.
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@stalkervision Start with the Wikipedia entry. TWR has gotten some publicity because Bill Gates has invested in it. Aside from the enriched U to get it started, it can burn depleted uranium; there are huge amounts of that in the world. A single fueling can last 60 years. It might even burn spent fuel from regular reactors.
It does look interesting but it's still on the drawing boards.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
is stalkervision your bum chum that trys to blanket out the comments that show you know nothing except what you have seen on TV?
LOL
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar Are you aware of it when you don't make any sense?
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
It's not my problem you can not tell the difference between yourn arse and a hole in the ground, but your are doing quite well for a deluded security gaurd, do you work for the same firm as stbays?
Q. Has all the matter in the universe been acounted for, quantified and catalouged?
Q. How was time dilation factored into project Apollo?
Q. Why are you such a wazzock?
:-)
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar Never been a security guard. You must have an awfully limited view of the world to not know that security guards aren't the only people who use hand-held radios.
Relativity was not significant in Apollo operations as its effects were "down in the noise": the distances too small, the velocities too low and the durations too short. The laser ranging experiments can certainly observe its effects, though.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
what utter bollock you are talking, if there is a signifiact enought differenc from sea level to the top of a cooling tower several hunderd metres, just how was it not an important factor on the way and on the moon?
And admit it all your so called laws are just theories.
You are holding a walky -talky in a museum, I have only seen securtiy gaurds and maintenance guys doing that, are the the janitor then?
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar Sigh. Yet another innumerate Apollo denier.
The earth's gravitational redshift is *tiny*. It can be measured over small altitude differences with very accurate atomic clocks, but it was just not an operational issue in Apollo. Regular tracking removed the effect along with much larger errors due to noise.
The gravity redshift on earth's equator is 0.00000000069535. At 1km it's 0.00000000069524. Neither is very much.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
who is talking about red shiftsonly as far as andromeda LOL
I just wanted to know if all the matter in thre universe was acounted for?
and if "they" knew how many micrometeores hit the moons every second like sand and dust to a desert LOL @ Y. O . U .
LOL @ YOU
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar Well, guess what. In general relativity, time dilation IS red shift.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
Red shift, is NOT time dilation you are completely lost, stick to mopping and scrubbing up the toilet floor you poor fool :-)
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar In general relativity, time dilation causes a red/blue shift when a stationary clock is viewed from another location with a different gravitational potential. GPS satellite clocks viewed from the earth appear to run fast (blue shift). An observer in space will see clocks on earth run slow (red shift).
Spend some time reading up on this stuff, because you're obviously completely confused. Just grabbing buzzwords from Google won't do it.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar Gravitational red/blue shifts can be predicted just with conservation of energy. A photon climbing out of a gravitational well loses energy, so its frequency decreases (red shift). A photon falling into a gravity well gains energy, so its frequency increases (blue shift).
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
so are you the museum custodian or what? LOO oh sorry I meant LOL
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar You really ARE innumerate, aren't you? Just because relativistic effects can be detected with carefully designed scientific experiments doesn't mean they were a significant engineering or operational factor in the Apollo program. They weren't.
Go learn the basics, compute the numbers and see for yourself that they were insignificant compared to the other error sources in Apollo guidance and tracking.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
Spare me the name calling and misdirection and just answer the questions.
If you can't it will prove you do not know how to, or you can but know it proves Apollo was faked :-(
We both know you can't, so you better go grab your mop and bucket and get back to what you know best, scrubbing shit off the toilet floor :-)
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar Sorry, but I'm not going to waste my time on analyses you won't even begin to understand. But I'll reconsider if you explain to me exactly why you think relativistic effects should have affected the Apollo missions.
The fact that you even brought it up shows you don't have a clue about any of this stuff.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar But then again, the mere fact that you think Apollo was faked was proof enough that you haven't a clue about even the most basic principles of physics, math and engineering.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@AWR
look at this dumb ass, then go give those cisterns a good flushing :-)
watch?v=RAAsSB81jIo
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar What about it? I see a split screen view of Apollo footage and Mythbusters footage. Am I supposed to read minds?
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
The wires attached to the space monkey's PPLS you blind wazzock, and you can see that mythbuster faking the footage idiots like you cling to.
Now didn't you say that satellites in a LEO need to have their clocks adjusted and they are only a few hundred miles, correct.
Apollo went a lot further out and then into a 1/6 G surely apoloos clocks would need to adjusted to compensate for time dilation time?
GET IT now Mr. Janitor?
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar Terribly sorry to disappoint you. Debunked almost 2 years ago: v=L9mYWWHREag
And I didn't say anything about adjusting LEO satellite clocks. GPS uses a high 12 hour orbit. The effect is only noticeable because of how GPS works, and you might be terribly surprised to learn that Apollo predated GPS.
Ever thought of using a spell checker? Or laying off the sauce when you type?
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
Do you even know what debunked means?
LunaTuna is a bigger idiot than you, he/or the DVD producers could have air brushed out those wires :-)
Are you saying that satellites in LEOs & GEOs are not affected by gravitational time dilation?
Just point out those typos and spelling mistakes if it makes you feel big, I rarely even read what I write I just type and go, you can spend hours on these comments going over and over in the vain hope of appearing intelligent, go for it!
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar Yes, I know what "debunked" means. Apparently, you don't and that's too bad. You must have missed the part where LunerTuner points out that the version without the scratches has much better color balance and detail, showing that it's a better copy of the original.
And yeah, it's quite apparent you don't bother to read what you write.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
Aparently you don't know what debunked mean, it does not mean sypathetic actors agreeing with the curent dogma.
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar "sypathetic"? "curent"?
You REALLY should lay off the sauce when typing. Or stop smoking whatever it is you're smoking.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
At least we can agree on one thing my typing is awful, especially with this small netbook keyboard, the shop servicing my note book is REALLY screwing me around replacing my screen they are even more annoying than you ;-) LOL
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
Even though we can agree; my typing IS awful and I only comment when I am drunk or feeling a bit bored :-)
One must still ask the question; is this all you have left picking up on typos and spelling mistakes?
:-)
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
If I spell the words "sympathetic" & "current" correctly will you answer the question, or will you simply keep looking for other ways to misdirect the argument?
:-)
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar You have to EXPLAIN the argument first. How does relativity supposedly disprove the reality of the Apollo missions? How was it supposedly not taken into account?
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
My argument is; if the effects of time dilation are noticeable on a cooling tower just a few hundred metres up due to a slightly weaker gravity. It would follow the weaker the gravity the more effects of time dilation. Therefore on the inter-lunar coast when they would be at very low Gs and on the moon 1/6th of a G the effects would be even more significant.
I want to know how this was factored into project apolloo?
:-)
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar Your reasoning is incorrect. The gravitational red/blueshift is strongest where the gravitational field is strongest. As you climb out of the gravity well, the incremental change becomes smaller and smaller. E.g., the gravitational time dilation observed on the earth's surface from lunar distance is practically the same as from an object at infinite distance. The formula is
T = T0/sqrt(1-2GM/(Rc^2))
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
where T0 is local clock rate at radius R, T is clock rate of an infinite altitude clock observed at radius R, c is speed of light, GM is gravitational parameter for planet (G = gravitational constant, M = planet mass). As R goes to infinity, T/T0 goes to 1, as expected. For R = earth radius, T and T0 differ by about 1 part in 10^9. So a clock at any finite altitude will differ from an earth surface clock by less than 1 part in 10^9.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
nice parroting, did you ckick and paste all of it. or did you shuffle it around to make it look original?
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar Either find the textbook passage from which I supposedly "parroted" this information, or stop claiming that it was. You're starting to annoy me.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar And now please explain to me how relativity supposedly made Apollo impossible. Or please admit that you were grasping at straws, making up reasons that you thought would be too complex for anyone to debunk.
It *is* easy to dream up hoax claims. It takes a lot more work to thoroughly shoot them down.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@AWR
I am annoying?
That is rich coming from a total wazzock like you
See if you can spot typo you dweeb
I know Apollo was fake as I have seen the wires, bubbles and the rest of the ridiculous TV show
Even the rocks were proven fakes
Most of space-monkeys are freemasons the top guy at mission control was the brother of the top douche. Freaks that dress up like twats, prance around like faggots giving each other funny handshakes, and swear to keep their brother secrets on fear of death.
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar Wires and bubbles? I guess you can see whatever you want to see even when it's not there.
As for the rocks, I have yet to see a single qualified geologist agree with you.
Look, just like Jarrah you're probably really disappointed you never became an astronaut. Neither did most people. Doesn't mean you have to play sour grapes.
So I'm still waiting for your explanation of how relativity "disproves" Apollo. Or were you simply not expecting someone to call your bluff?
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
yeah well what about the geologist that identified the Dutch moon rocks as petrified wood?
And what of this bacteria then?
2 tangible pieces of evidence, these are not dreams you wazzock :-)
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar As far as I know, it's an open question whether the bacteria found inside the Surveyor camera survived on the moon or were introduced through contamination after the camera was returned to earth by the Apollo 12 crew.
How is that relevant to the fact that it WAS returned by the Apollo 12 crew? Please explain; the connection, if any, escapes me.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
Q. Can bacteria survive under the extreme conditions found on the moon?
I am pretty sure the answer is a resounding no.
Therefore it was a prop and was never even on the moon.
Your wishful reasoning that someone put it there or the rocks were replaced with petrified stone, just go to show how simple minded your are :-)
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar "Pretty sure?" Why, have you conducted the experiment?
Again you reveal your remarkably poor logical reasoning skills by setting up a false dichotomy. The third alternative explanation is simply that the bacteria in question came from contamination after the camera was returned from the moon.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
Actually you do not seem to have any logical reasoning skills what-so-ever.
Your story is completely dependant on unknown variables and events such as; where and when did the bacteria get inside the camera?
How did it get there?
What proof do you have to support this extremely convenient fantasy alibi?
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar What "story" are you referring to? And what "alibi"?
The basic facts: in November 1969, the Apollo 12 crew landed near the Surveyor III spacecraft that had landed on April 20, 1967. They removed its TV camera and returned it to earth.
Bacteria was found inside that camera. Whether or not it survived on the moon or was accidentally introduced after its return is immaterial to the reality of those two missions no matter how confused you may be, or how confusing you try to be.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
What story? Your story, the one you made up to fill in the gaps created by the bacteria.
It would be quite an easy experiment to prove if bacteria can or cannot survive on the moon, they could start with putting it in a vacuum chamber then heat it up and cool it from -150 to +150C for 2 years.
Do you think it would survive?
And your alternative story that it got in there after the came back, okay then where did it happen when, how, who put it there?
Was it the moon pixies?
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar Yes, that would be a worthwhile experiment; for once we actually agree. Re contamination, the bacteria in question, Streptococcus mitis, is very widespread in the environment. Most of us carry it on the skin where it causes no problems as long as the skin is unbroken.
See the Wikipedia article "Reports of Streptococcus mitis on the moon" for all the details and references. You don't have to remain quite so unenlightened, you know; Wikipedia is your friend.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
It is an easy experiment to exclude the story of the bacteria surviving on the moon, so why has it not been done?
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar Don't ask me, I'm an engineer, not a microbiologist.
I'm still waiting for your explanation of how general relativity supposedly refutes the reality of the Apollo missions. You obviously didn't understand the subject, so I'm not surprised you're evading the question now.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
Why do expect me to answer your question when you point blank refuse to answer mine and have done for months now?
:-(
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar Answer what question? I answered your question about relativity, now you change the subject.
I can see you're quite fond of the Gish Gallop.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
Have been asking you one simple question for ages and you side step and misdirect continually even to the point of pretending the question does not exist.
Now answer; what is the moral of the Emperor’s New Clothes?
And why do you think the Emperor falls for the weavers lines?
You and Gish are both sophist creationists, blind followers of a faith; you have far more in common with him that I do ;-)
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar Oh Christ, not this "Emperor's New Clothes" bullcrap again. I though we already established that I have ABSOLUTELY no idea what answer you want.
There's more than a slight difference between creationists like Gish and those who have studied the Apollo program in considerable depth.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
"Oh Christ" are you calling on supernatural powers to help your of argument?
Is Jesus you last best hope?
We have thoroughly established you do not understand the moral to the story, in "The Emperor’s New Clothes".
That’s why you lap up propaganda, and in moments of distress fall back on your supernatural figures don't you ;-)
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar How little you know me! I'm an agnostic/atheist, but I'm still entitled to use common English expressions.
We have only established that you don't like my take on the Emperor's New Clothes, nothing more. Not surprising, as the fable is a wonderful metaphor for the woo-woos like you who pretend to see evidence of Apollo fakery that just isn't there.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
I know enough to say when you are desperate you call on Jesus :-)
And you have no clue what the Emporores New Clothes is all about (if yiou do just explaine the norale) LOL
Just give some evidence Apollo was real and I will counter it as I know it was fake, just like you :-) The wires LOL
Open your freakin eyes LOL@you so desperately hanging on
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar And I'm still waiting for your explanation for why General Relativity supposedly disproves Apollo.
It's fairly obvious that you were simply bluffing. You had no idea what you were talking about, but you figured that you could sound erudite by invoking the word, and no one would know enough to shoot you down. Yet a simple calculation shows the magnitude of the effect to be far too tiny to affect Apollo's navigation methods.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
well you hope I am bluffing if not you better go hide your head in shame :-)
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
I can't speak for Jarrah, but I did want to be an astronaut, I also wanted to be a pirate captain, does not mean I don’t think Jonny Depp is real does it you supercilious ass?
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar Oh, I am reasonably sure that Johnny (note spelling) Depp is a real person: an American actor born in 1963. I'm also quite sure that pirates also exist, unfortunately; at the moment, most seem to be Somalian.
As for fake moon rocks: by your reasoning, the fact that we once found a fake dollar bill in the lunchroom vending machine proves that US currency does not exist. I think you'll find plenty of geologists who have examined Apollo samples and concluded they're real.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
I think it is you that's is still affected by your childhood fantasies and it is you that wanted to be an astronaut but did not have "the right stuff" and settled for working for an air & space museum as a janitor.
BTW I am English and they do not really have a space program let alone any astronauts and certainly not when I was a boy so it was not an option for me, but it must have hard on you, knowing you fellow countrymen could :-(
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
Time dilation seemed pretty important to the space monkeys in planet of the apes LOL
I was asking a legitimate question to see the depths of your parroting skills, and they do seem boundless.
Be honest admit it you dont actually know anything you just repat what you read, or click and paste it in the case of YT comments?
:-)
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar I say again, either find the textbook from which I "parroted" my material or stop making the claim.
I know you can't comprehend the possibility that anyone might actually know what they're talking about when you haven't a clue.
Just as you can't comprehend how NASA could go to the moon when you haven't a clue how they did it. This may come as a crushing blow, but you're not the smartest bloke on the planet. But if you concede it, you might actually learn something.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
Did you formulate the equations you used?
Did you discover the effects of time dilation?
Did you invent relativity?
No you parroted it didn't you.
Who's a pretty boy then?
LOL
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar I'm STILL waiting for your explanation of how general relativity supposedly made Apollo impossible...or an admission that you just made it all up without a clue.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
keep waiting wazzock LOL
I will answer you that when you answer me this; what is the moral of the emperor's new clothes?
I am waiting to hear how you can trust the testimony of a freemason too?
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar So you admit it then: you just made up that relativity and Apollo stuff without knowing what the hell you were talking about. That much was obvious.
I also find it absolutely hilarious that you should think Freemasonry is some sort of super-secret faction running the world behind the scenes. My grandfather who died almost 40 years ago was a Mason. As far as I could tell, it was a grownup version of a boy's secret treehouse club.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar And it's funnier still that you keep using offensive English slang without realizing that has absolutely no meaning to an American. It's a pretty good illustration of your limited, pedestrian view of the world.
Why don't you broaden your horizons a little? There's a lot of cool stuff going on outside your own walled-off world.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
So you admit you are a 3rd generation freemason?
And you cannot get the gist of the ENC?
I am English therefore I use English slang, what nationality of slang do you think I should use then, you septic wanker or should I only American so you can understand?
Would you like me to call you a "mothersucker" and "my negro" at the beginning and end of every sentence, will that make you feel more at home, "home boy"?
lol@americanisums
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar My knowledge of freemasonry begins and ends with knowing that my grandfather was one. As far as I know, it's a secret drinking club that didn't like Catholics. Why are you obsessed with them? Did they reject you when you tried to join?
Received Standard ("BBC") English without UK slang will do nicely. Less opportunity for misunderstandings that way.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
your knowledge of freemasonry started with your grandfather and ended with your hero Neil Armstrong, most of the a-nots and most of mission control.
Have you any clue regarding statistics?
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar Yes, I'm reasonably knowledgeable about statistics. At least 99.5% of all Apollo conspiracy theorists are certifiably nuts.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
you seem to be blind to statistics and probability.
What are the odds of the LEMon landing and taking off 6 times without a hitch, having never been actually tested fully at its' task?
About zero :-(
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar Gee, I really couldn't say since the LM *was* extensively tested before the first lunar landing. Besides all the ground tests and static firings, there was the unmanned Apollo 5 flight, the earth orbital Apollo 9 flight and the lunar orbital Apollo 10 flight.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
You can't really say because you know the chances are around zero :-)
And all live on TV LOL @ your naivety
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar No, the chances were quite good given the exhaustive and methodical testing. With *any* new aircraft or spacecraft there is *always* a first takeoff and a first landing. But that doesn't mean they're unprepared for.
You have simply nothing that says otherwise other than your own ignorant biases.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
I hardly call the most improbable event in history occurring over and over without hitch, and then never being replicated since, ignorant biases, it is called good judgment you cunt.
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar Without hitch? Really? Like Apollo 13? The computer alarms on Apollo 11? The lightning strike and burned out TV camera on Apollo 12? Apollo 14's faulty abort button? The CSM problems that nearly aborted the Apollo 16 landing?
I'd say they got that far thanks to good engineering and extensive ground and flight testing.
If you have trouble understanding how they did this, just remember: they were a LOT smarter than you. I know, I know, that doesn't say much.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
I am talking about landing and taking off from the moon and you know it cunt, did 13 land and take off from the moon? No, so button your mug it you utter fool.
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar Yes, the more I think about it, the more I realize all your problems and objections with Apollo have a very simple explanation:
You think you're the smartest guy who ever lived. But the boys at NASA were much, MUCH smarter than you.
Get that through your head and that huge load of cognitive dissonance you've been carrying like a millstone for years will dissipate. Guaranteed.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
So it that what you do, just sit their contentedly saying to yourself those guys are so much smarter than me, they must be right.
Well I will try it, but I dont see how that will make the wires, the dangling and bubbles go away?
Well I could if it was like a religious experience?
Is it like the woman that see jesus in her coffee?
If I believe, will those wire turn into film artifacts, and the bubbles into magic paint?
LOL
They say "ignorance is bliss", is it true?
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar No need to make go away what's not there in the first place.
And yeah, by every indication they were indeed a lot smarter than you. They put men on the moon. You can't even spell "Emporores" and "norale".
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
well what is the correct spelling of norale?
You know I was drunk when I typed that, what of it?
Is this all you have?
Picking up on typos?
Very sad indeed :-(
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar I don't know, it depends on what word you meant.
I might know more about engineering than you do, but I still can't read minds.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
@ApolloWasReal
I was joking you pleb, sorry forgot you were a septic, you are lost without the canned laughter, I will type *laugh now* after the next gag just for you and your fellow countrymen :-(
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar Ah, so that explains it! I couldn't understand how anyone could seriously argue that Apollo was hoaxed, that the floating debris seen during EVAs are bubbles, or that my grandfather's drinking buddies are some sort of massive force for world evil. Now I understand that you were joking. Not that your jokes were especially funny or anything.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
hello wuzzock, I have eventually received my note book back from the service centre.
What is the likelihood of your granddads bum chums making up the majority of the space-monkeys and key staff at mission control, and you being a 3rd generation and obsessed with Apollo.
100% chance you are all brainwashed idiots that believe anything an authority figure tells you, well as long as you get to prance around and feel important.
That's why you call on Christ in your lowest moments too
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar My grandfather didn't even finish high school. No chance his buddies made it to NASA with the same education he had.
What are you talking about? I'm an agnostic. So no, I don't believe anything authority figures tell me. Certainly not without evidence.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
Are you trying saying Buzz, Neil and the HEAD of mission control were not freemasons(his brother was the grand wizard LOL)?
You hapless fool go and do some prancing with your bum chums it will make you feel better :-)
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar I have no idea whether Buzz, Neal or anyone else in NASA are or were Freemasons. And I couldn't care less.
Your fixation on a social club is just plain baffling. Perhaps it's a manifestation of paranoid schizophrenia. That can be treated, you know.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
It is not a social club it is a SECRET SOCIETY for faggots that like playing dress up.
Funny how you know all the intricate details of project apollo, you probably know Neil's shoe size and star sign, and you are a 3rd generation prancer and so were all the key people in the project, it is a well known FACT.
There is no cure for being a stupid faggot you will just have to live with it :-(
You could try some electrodes on your balls triggered when you look at underage boys :-(....
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar Okay, fine. So it's a secret society for boys that like playing dress up. But given how my grandfather used to talk, I seriously doubt they had very many, ahem, faggots.
So why are you obsessed with a secret society for boys that like playing dress up? Did they reject you when you tried to join?
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
I am not obsessing I am simply making an observation, that the number of prancing fags involved in project apollo is disproportionate to the population.
So is the number of US presidents, everyone knows there are Masonic symbols on the dollar bill and the architecture of Washington DC.
The very nature of the organisation is to protect the secret that they use occult technology to enslave the minds of the fools that join.
I don't believe in god or magic I am not mason material :-)
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar You know, that HAS to be the answer. Nothing else makes any sense. You once tried to get into the Freemasons and they rejected you. That crushed your ego, and you're still really pissed off.
And obsessed. It's festered so much that you're now under the delusion that these guys secretly control the whole world. No, it can't possibly be YOUR fault that you're such a loser. It can only be because the Freemasons are pulling all the strings to make you lose!
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
Are you ok, calm down, have a glass of water and count to ten :-)
You seem like you are getting your big fat ginger tits in a twist?
Did I touch a sore spot?
LOL@ginger-tits
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar Sore spot? No. More like my funny bone. I know it took me a while, but I really did figure it out, didn't I? The Freemasons wouldn't let you join, and now you're out for revenge. I sure don't see any other reason why you're so obsessed with them.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
Why are you being so defensive?
You are the one obsessed with calling me obsessed.
Back to your last best hope; the "same to you with bells on" attack LOL
Tell me, how many prancing fags does it take to fly a rocket to the moon?
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar Your problem has to do with the definition of the word "noticeable". For general relativity to be 'noticeable' across just a few hundred meters, a very elaborate experiment had to be designed and carefully executed. If you use ordinary wristwatches, the effect would certainly NOT be noticeable.
And Apollo's tracking methods were far less sensitive to the effects of relativity than the GPS. Very different designs.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar Of course satellites in both LEO and GEO, like any object in a gravitational field, are affected by gravitational time dilation. But the farther away they are from the earth, the smaller the effect. The effect is greatest on the surface of the earth.
Now please explain to me why you think relativity was somehow an obstacle to the Apollo missions, or admit you haven't a clue but just made it up.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
Not relitvity but time dilation.
And just answer the question?
From previous discussion/debates with you, I know you refusew to answer questions that show you are wrong :-)
Is that why you are avoiding answering these questions?
:-(
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar "Not relitvity but time dilation".
Aside from being unable to spell it correctly, do you even have the barest clue what relativity is all about? Special OR general?
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
Yes my spelling is awful, but is that all you have left?
If not just answer the question; how much faster is time running on the inter-lunar coast and the moon compared to Earth standard time?
BTW time dilation is not "relativity" as much as you wish it was :-)
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
you really do get excited over typos don't you :-(
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
And just for reference only yesterday you were saying it was only GPS satellites that need their clocks adjusted lol@you.com
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar Here's a hint: GPS users do not transmit, but Apollo used "two-way" tracking; the ground sent up a carrier and ranging signal that was turned around by a coherent transponder. This method does not require an atomic clock on the spacecraft and is inherently resistant to errors, including the very small ones introduced by relativity.
Strictly speaking, GPS is also resistant to errors thanks to its ground monitoring stations. Relativity shows up as a clock bias in the ephemeris.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
The relativity clock adjustments to the GPS satellites simply reduce the clock error in the satellite's ephemeris (the numbers broadcast by each satellite that describe its precise orbit and clock errors).
Without those adjustments the system would still work fine but there'd be a bias in the clock frequency error that would require more bits to transmit. And the nav message is only 50 bits/sec.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
I am not looking for hints regarding GPS, can you just answer if you can how much faster is time on the inter-lunar coast and the surface of the moon compared to standard Earth time?
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar You still haven't told me how or why relativity shows Apollo couldn't have worked.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar Okay, here's your answer, for all the good it'll do you. As observed from the Earth's surface, a clock on an Apollo spacecraft in transit to the moon will appear to run about 1.0000000007 times faster than a clock on earth. The altitude is so high that it might as well be infinite.
Happy?
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
Have a field day with my typos and spelling mistakes today, they are even making me cringe, I better take lay off the sauce LOL :-)
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar By the way, the rate offset between TT, terrestrial time and TCB, time at the solar system barycenter as published by the IAU, is only 1.0000000155051976772.
Now if you can't understand that, I can only suggest you stop pretending that you do.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
Can you simply answer the question;
How fast is time running at the mid way point between the Earth and Moon's gravitational field and actually on the moon compared to standard Earth time?
Spare me the sarcasm and petty put downs, just provide and answer, or else please be quite.
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
Barycenter is an Americanism for centre of mass, correct?
Don’t you mean centre of gravity you wazzock? LOL
And who asked for the difference between the solar system barycenter & TT?
The question was the Earth - Moon centre of gravity, Lunar Time & TT?
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar No, the correct term is center of mass. Look it up.
You still haven't answered my question: how do you think relativity invalidates the Apollo missions? Or are you just throwing around big words to sound cool?
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
Comment removed
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar I asked you how you would have expected relativity to affect Apollo for a reason. I want you to demonstrate that you actually understand the concepts, that you're doing more than stringing together phrases you've found in Wikipedia. Presumably you are claiming that relativistic effects should have been seen on Apollo but were not. It is up to you to demonstrate that, as I've already explained their magnitudes were far too small.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@AWR
The fact you are not answering the question, but choose to attack the questioner, means you are a sophist douche bag :-(
The fact, you are not answering it means you can't for some reason, the most likely is you just can't because you are a supercilious ass that works as a museum custodian :-)
claytonstarbar 1 year ago
@claytonstarbar I'm happy to research and answer sincere questions from people who want to learn, as that's an opportunity for me to learn as well.
But that's not the case here. You have Googled a few fancy-sounding phrases and strung them together into questions that don't even make sense. And you'd pretend that's my fault.
But I'll give you another chance. Explain exactly HOW you'd expect relativity to affect an Apollo flight and I'll compute the magnitude of the effects.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@stalkervision Speaking of nuclear reprocessing, there's been some publicity about a "traveling wave" reactor. It breeds and burns its own plutonium without need for reprocessing or even a refueling shutdown. The name comes from the way it slowly burns a fuel load from one end to the other. Pu fission (burning) occurs in one region, breeding Pu from U-238 in another. It looks really interesting.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@stalkervision Complete water recycling would be an absolute must in any long-duration spacecraft. The ISS tries to capture and reuse water, but it's not a closed cycle so they still need resupply. I wish they put more emphasis on testing closed-cycle life support.
Solar sails are one form of propulsion that doesn't require propellant, yes. But also very slow, and limited to the inner solar system.
And yes, that was Project Orion, using bombs to propel spaceships.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@stalkervision Ion propulsion still requires a propellant. Xenon is the current favorite. Ion engines eject their propellants at extremely high velocity compared to chemical rockets so much less propellant is needed for a given delta-V. But a propellant is still needed. Also, ion engines have far lower thrust/weight ratios than chemical rockets so they're for long trips when you have plenty of time.
Cooling by sublimating water is completely impractical for long trips.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@stalkervision Energy alone will not drive a spacecraft. You also need propellant. Chemical rocket propellants serve the dual role of storing energy and providing the reaction mass against which the rocket pushes. You can generate the energy some other way (solar panels, nuclear reactor) but you still must transfer that energy to some mass and eject it out the back at high speed. Otherwise you don't go anywhere.
You wanna eat algae for a year?
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@stalkervision Well, do the calculations. You'll find that every spacecraft that has explored the inner solar system has used solar power to do so, and it is nonetheless a seriously limited commodity. Spacecraft that explore the outer solar system must do so with nuclear power, which in the form of RTGs has been even more limited. Reactors would be a significant improvement.
We're also nowhere near having a wholly self-contained life support system that doesn't need external food supplies.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@stalkervision Indeed they would. Unfortunately, the laws of physics have a way of getting in the way. And those laws state that short of the original Project Orion, which would have detonated nuclear bombs to lift a spaceship off the earth, there's simply no way to get something the size of a cruise ship into space.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@stalkervision Well, there are a variety of views on this that all have merit. Some want to go directly to Mars. Some want to go back to the moon first. Some want to go to an asteroid for both scientific reasons (to look at and sample one close up) and to mine it for use in space flight.
One good argument for the moon is that it can be reached in just a few days and a shelter quickly built; a direct flight to either Mars or an asteroid risks unshielded exposure to a major solar event.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@stalkervision I'd love to go to Mars too, but you must crawl before you can walk, and walk before you can run. Mars isn't just a quick run, it's a marathon.
There's much to be said for going back to the moon, especially if we can mine it for materials to reduce the mass we lift off the earth. It's true that whatever we mine has to more than make up for the extra cost (propellant, etc) in landing on the moon and leaving again. An alternative "space mine" is an asteroid. Much lower gravity.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@stalkervision R/D panels?
No question, shielding will be required for any long manned interplanetary flight. You try to use existing structures, like tanks of propellant, oxygen and water as much as possible, but if that's not enough you'll either have to bring up more mass from earth, which is very expensive, or get it in space.
An asteroid is one possibility, the moon another. Both require more propellant. We can get O2 from the moon, H2 maybe from H2O at the poles.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
We already know how to produce oxygen on the moon so we really don't have to send it from earth. Aluminum, iron, calcium, silicon, sodium, titanium and other useful elements are also abundant on the moon. Hydrogen was thought to be scarce until the discovery of water near the poles. But even if we have to launch H2 from earth, at least it's a lot lighter than sending water.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@stalkervision It's a two-step process. Liquid water seeps out the small pores in the sublimator plate. Some immediately vaporizes, carrying away enough heat to freeze the rest to ice, plugging the holes. As waste heat sublimates the ice, more water seeps out and the process repeats. It's self-regulating.
The overall effect turns liquid water into a gas (steam) that carries away waste heat. It's very effective and requires little power, but uses precious water. OK for short visits only.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@stalkervision IMO, what a practical manned moon base really needs is in-situ resource utilization: using lunar materials to reduce what you bring from earth.
Because its goal was strictly to beat the Russians to the moon, not to stay and do science, Apollo was exactly the opposite. For cooling, the LM and PLSS boiled precious water to space. For attitude control the LM and CSM used thrusters instead of reaction wheels. They didn't even use solar power!
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@stalkervision I don't see that a permanent station in earth orbit is especially useful as a waystation to the moon. Any given station is unlikely to be in the optimum orbit for a lunar transfer trajectory.
Earth Orbit Rendezvous, assembling a moon-bound ship in earth orbit, did make sense as a way to avoid having to develop really huge rockets. Constellation was conceived as EOR + LOR but I think it should have used more flights of smaller rockets.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@stalkervision The main problems with long-term lunar stays are a) it gets a lot hotter at solar noon b) nights get really cold and last 2 weeks c) you need more consumables (oxygen, food, water, power, LiOH) than a LM could carry and d) the longer you stay, the greater the risk of being caught in a solar proton storm.
And that's why Apollo always landed in the early morning and their longest visit was only 3 days. They didn't have to solve any of these problems.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
QUESTION APOLLOGIST
Why do you guys make up all this answers? Great fantasy? Great imagination? Lazyness?
Just google for "conan the bacterium"and you will have some answers. If you guys always say something like science will win or science first, why do you only use your fantasy? Just investigate
gijsshu 1 year ago
@gijsshu
Why don't you like the answers Gijs? Why don't you try to understand what ApolloWasReal states in his comments? It's very hard to come up with non-ionizing or ionizing radiation by imagination. Like it's very hard to learn about Newton's laws, Electronics, Chemistry or Thermal Radiation using lazyness. It's far more easier to become a frantic conspiracist because one is unable to understand or comprehend, deliberately or not.
Rob260259 1 year ago
@Rob260259 actually I was referring to this part of awr's previous comment.
Recent findings call into question the original discovery of bacteria in the Surveyor III camera. It's possible the bacteria got there after the camera was cut off the spacecraft by the Apollo 12 astronauts.
But now you mention it: according to you and awr the scientists who investigated and tested "conan" Also have no clue of different types of radiation.
gijsshu 1 year ago
@stalkervision Loaded with radiation? Please explain. What kind of radiation? Ionizing or non-ionizing? If particulate, what kinds and what energy levels? What mechanisms produce it? What are the hourly absorbed doses through standard amounts of shielding? Enquiring minds want to know!
Hint: there's a vast difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
Recent findings call into question the original discovery of bacteria in the Surveyor III camera. It's possible the bacteria got there after the camera was cut off the spacecraft by the Apollo 12 astronauts. The subject still appears open. See this Wikipedia article (and its references):
Reports of Streptococcus mitis on the moon
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
You don't understand heat transfer in a vacuum at all, do you?
mercatormac 1 year ago
@mercatormac,
No do you?
Peace to you
awe130 1 year ago
@awe130 Surveyor I mission report. Part II - Scientific data and results. Page 45 states...
"In fact, the spacecraft was, to the greatest extent possible, thermally isolated from the lunar surface to provide operation at the same temperature in flight and during daytime on the surface"
Do you ever do more than 30 seconds research for your videos awe?
mercatormac 1 year ago
@mercatormac,
Yes do you?
"You don't understand heat transfer in a vacuum at all, do you?"
Peace to you
awe130 1 year ago
@awe130 I'm not making videos claiming that Apollo was faked. You are. You need to have some knowledge about the things you claim. You don't
mercatormac 1 year ago
@mercatormac,
You are funny, I am not claiming to have knowledge, you do on the other hand, by reacting with solutions for NASA. You are an "Apollo creationist" that means from this point on you are always right.
Peace to you
awe130 1 year ago
@awe130 "Apollo creationist"? Did you just make up that term? Do you actually know what the words mean?
Just asking. You question NASA, I get to question you.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal,
You are right, never believe me but do some invatgation your self and you will join the whisper.
Peace to you
awe130 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
"You question NASA, I get to question you."
He doesn't ask questions AWR. The only thing he does is not wanting answers. It's all about 'invatgation'...LOL
Rob260259 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal,
If it is NASA or AwE130, you should always question.
Peace to you
awe130 1 year ago
@awe130 Question what? And why?
My only question here is why you keep asking the same questions, even after they've been answered many times. Rob is right, you don't want answers.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal,
Answers by rob and you are not alowed to question? I see where your come from ApolloWasReal can both of you be called two "Apollo creationists" how make the Apollo project in a religion.
Peace to you
awe130 1 year ago
@awe130 Is english your first language? Just wondering, because you're not making much sense.
You should look up the definitions of "religion", "science" and "creationism" and take note of their differences.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago