The MOON HOAX

If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.
Lazlo
Member
Posts: 220
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:13 pm

Re: The MOON HOAX

Unread post by Lazlo »

LEM LOOKS "OFF THE SHELF"


I have always gotten an "off the shelf" vibe from that LEM. I am talking about after it separates from its spider-thingy landing cushioning platform and takes off from the Lunar surface. I think I may be right. While I haven't "nailed" it yet, as I think that thing sprang full blown from an agricultural cooperative supply house, below I am close:

Image


Above Photo: Portable Orange Fogger for freeze prevention

But with more of an arc to the fogger part like below:

Image
pov603
Member
Posts: 870
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:02 pm

Re: The MOON HOAX

Unread post by pov603 »

simonshack wrote:*

Image
It still 'blows me away' who/how they operated that camera.
brianv
Member
Posts: 3971
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm
Contact:

Re: The MOON HOAX

Unread post by brianv »

pov603 wrote:
simonshack wrote:*

Image
It still 'blows me away' who/how they operated that camera.
And how they got the reel back to Earth!
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: The MOON HOAX

Unread post by simonshack »

brianv wrote: And how they got the reel back to Earth!
Brian - the reel must have been retrieved by Apollo 18 ! :lol:

Seriously now, what does NASA have to say about his? HOW was this "LEM lunar take-off footage" relayed back to Earth - in 1972? Anyone?
pov603
Member
Posts: 870
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:02 pm

Re: The MOON HOAX

Unread post by pov603 »

:lol:
brianv
Member
Posts: 3971
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm
Contact:

Re: The MOON HOAX

Unread post by brianv »

I've had this reply before...

A: It [The TV Studio Camera] was remotely controlled from earth and it had a powerful transmitter installed.

How much did it weigh?

A: Still waiting.

This is what they need to broadcast on Earth nowadays!

Image
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: The MOON HOAX

Unread post by simonshack »

*


"APOLLO SHOT" OF THE DAY
Keep the doctor away - with a NASA-laugh a day

Image

NASA image description:
"An excellent picture of the LM with many structural details are visible. The area under, and slightly behind the engine bell shows evidence of disturbed soil resulting from the Descent Engine exhaust. The lightweight construction of the LM is apparent in this picture. Minor buckling of panels covering the aft equipment bay and right side of the LM are visible. Notice also thermal damage done to the RCS plume deflectors. The extensive use of gold tape to secure the black insulation blankets can be seen." http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Histo ... .html#9254


"The Reaction Control System (RCS)": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_control_system
Image
Image
"The RCS was a vital rocket engine system for maintaining the attitude of the Apollo Service Module (SM), helped it to maneuver in space, plus undertake minor midcourse velocity corrections, abort separations and emergency attitude maneuvers. Each thruster produced 100 pounds of thrust." http://howthingsfly.si.edu/media/apollo ... system-rcs

Rocket science sure rocks ! But does it fly? :P
Flabbergasted
Administrator
Posts: 1244
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: The MOON HOAX

Unread post by Flabbergasted »

I don´t recall seeing a picture of the LEM with a crater below it ... although the crater looks anything but centralized and I can´t imagine where all that sand went (it certainly didn´t land on the gold foil).

By the way, did they make three attempts at landing?

Oh wait, it´s photoshopped!
Image
Also, the LEM leg on the right should extend over the "crater" to the foreground of the picture, not turn inwards.

Who says NASA doesn´t take conspiracy kooks seriously? :P

And that RCS looks like something out of "1984". It would be perfect as a loudspeaker blazoning government propaganda on a street corner.
JLapage
Member
Posts: 115
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 1:38 pm

Re: The MOON HOAX

Unread post by JLapage »

.

Jim Carrey and what he thinks of Neil Armstrong and his landing on the moon. Starts at about 7:10


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcO0RTI1a5I




*******************************************
ADMIN NOTICE (simon): Hey, do not miss the part starting at 5:55 when Jim Carrey provides proof of the existence of the Space Station!
:P
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: The MOON HOAX

Unread post by simonshack »

*


HOW DID APOLLO 11 TRANSMIT TV SIGNALS BACK TO EARTH?


Well, a more serious / no-nonsense question you may have (unless you are a lunatic moon-landing-Apollo-believer) is: "how does NASA explain this feat?"

As the story goes (and to make a tall tale short) the Apollo11 on-board TV camera transmitted so-called "slow scan" images to various terrestrial antenna dishes which then beamed the signal up again to TV-transmission satellites... There was, we are told, a great deal of 'drama' involved in the long-distance image-retrieval process and, as we will see, a popular Australian movie was made to recount this "true and dramatic story".

Image

Here's some more "info" posted at wired.com :

"To ensure a direct transmission signal from the moon, NASA had to maintain stations in three continents – two in Australia (the Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station near Canberra and the Parkes Radio Observatory surrounded by sheep paddocks west of Sydney); (...) When Armstrong opened the hatch on the lunar module, stepped out onto the moon, and uttered his famous words about mankind's giant leap, the tracking stations with a direct line on the Apollo's signal were the ones in Australia. The 200-foot-diameter radio dish at the Parkes facility managed to withstand freak 70 mph gusts of wind and successfully captured the footage, which was converted and relayed to Houston."
http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/15.01/nasa.html

Now, the top grossing movie in Australia in the year 2000 was "The Dish" - starring actor Sam Neill (of "Jurassic Park fame"). It also appears to be one of the grossest, most shameless in-your-face "Hollywool" mockeries in history. See, even though "The Dish" is presented as a 'comedy movie', it is not by any means meant to be a spoof of NASA's outlandish Apollo-moon-landings fairy tales, quite the contrary.

"Based on a true story, The Dish takes a comical look at the differing cultural attitudes between Australia and the U.S. while revisiting one of the greatest events in history." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dish

And here's the movie's official poster :

Image

Amusing, isn't it? Hmm... I wonder if those TV-watching sheep have a 'hidden meaning' - for only some of us human earth-dwellers to grasp? <_<

And the last lines of the movie are:
"Parks remains a part of NASA missions to this day. And it's still in the middle of a sheep paddock."
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0205873/quotes


********************************

A must watch (courtesy of "The Dish's" Wickedpedia page): http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... llo_11.ogv
"ABC news report on the role of the Parkes radio telescope and the Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station, broadcast a week before the Moon landing."


We have all been taken for a ride, folks. For over 45 years now... and counting. The sooner we get rid of the 'sheep-herders' of this world, the better.
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: The MOON HOAX

Unread post by simonshack »

*

TRANSCRIPTION PLEASE !

Here's a fun exercise (and helpful / scientific endeavor) for all kind native English speakers.

Please transcribe for all international Cluesforum readers what this - uh - rocket scientist (?) utters at the beginning of this video :



full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4fGl3SUfq4



Merci beaucoup - and thanks for your time! ^_^
hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5060
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: The MOON HOAX

Unread post by hoi.polloi »

This was my first draft:

... [t]abulator[?] has now reached a high level of development. And it's being successfully used in the operation of Nover Chunyuns.
Moreover, whenever a flourescent score motion is required, it may also be employed with a conjunction of a drawn reciprocation dingle arm (or ding alarm!) to reduce sinusoidal repleneration.


Rockwell Collins — those behind the moon hoax in the first place — were apparently feeling frisky and so they constructed a mockery of their own industry by inventing yet another fictional device called a "Turboencabulator", but this time under the guise of self-satire.

The translation of the technobabble according to Wickedpedia follows:
The turbo-encabulator has now reached a high level of development, and it’s being successfully used in the operation of novertrunnions. Moreover, whenever a forescent skor motion is required, it may also be employed in conjunction with a drawn reciprocation dingle arm, to reduce sinusoidal repleneration.
The video concludes:
It's not cheap, but I'm sure the government will buy it. [unfurls $750,000,000 price tag]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turboencabulator

Searching for "Turboencabulator" may not net you more results than terms like "unobtainium", "nuclear", "reentry vehicle", or more widespread hoaxes that are attempting to be less overt, but it joins the cadre as perhaps some obligatory 'letting-off of steam' so their other pranks can appear more serious. Another slight indication, which suggests to me they may be genuinely apathetic about those that can or can't tell the difference.

Here's another version from Chrysler:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXW0bx_Ooq4
gwynned
Member
Posts: 238
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 2:12 pm

Re: The MOON HOAX

Unread post by gwynned »

NBC mentions and then 'debunks' the MOON HOAX.
We've all heard the claims: the moon landing was a hoax, done on a soundstage somewhere in Los Angeles, made to cover up the failure of the Apollo program. And anyone who buys into the hoax theory will point to a boatload of evidence — among which is a famous photo of Buzz Aldrin descending a ladder in the shadow of the lander, yet so well-lit that, some say, there must have been an artificial light source. Graphics hardware company Nvidia decided to simulate the photo using its new high-end "Maxwell" hardware and the latest Unreal Engine, which powers dozens of next-generation video games.
Its sophisticated lighting system captures not just how light hits every object in a 3-D scene, but also how that light bounces off and hits other objects. That last bit is critical: their team found that what's producing the light from the camera's direction in the contested picture isn't a bulb, but the incredibly powerful sunlight bouncing off Neil Armstrong's bright white spacesuit. Their simulation produced exactly what they saw in the photo — though moonshot deniers may remain stubbornly unconvinced.
Strange that they would say 'WE'VE ALL HEARD THE CLAIMS. THE MOON LANDING WAS A HOAX.

Ask any 10 Americans and I doubt 1 in 10 have even considered the possibility. Is this the beginning of a 'reveal'?

http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/innovation/ ... ks-n207686
Fadge
Banned
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2014 11:47 pm

Re: The MOON HOAX

Unread post by Fadge »

[for moderation] I think this post may deserve a new thread, because it is, in my opinion, a tool for understanding of the formal teaching space paradigm. It can be used to all matters relating to space (moon hoax, hoax iss ...). It may be set to "annoucement" in the Space sub-forum as an illustrative tool for members of cluesforum. My intention is not to advertise a game, but just to explain and show how its use can be useful as a tool, and demonstrate its usefulness by example. If you think this post does not deserve a specific thread, move it elsewhere, it's up to you of coure. thank you. [/ for moderation]

A video game : a tool to understand and debunk space

Warning: this post does not aim to prove the truth of space travel, or to mock those who adress "wrong questions". It does not aim to advertise to make you buy a game.
This post aims to:
* understand the mechanics of official spatial paradigm, using a video game, or using videos of the game.
* Check if spatial stories are at least consistent with the official paradigm.

All this from a great video game that is a space simulation in real time.
In the second part of the post, as an example of the usefulness of this game, I lead a small research study from a video reconstruction of the journey apollo 11 . In addition, I discuss some specific aspects of the game, from the perspective of CluesForum, namely Media Fakery.
So there is 3 parts (Understanding, Checking, and Fakery in-game). I hope this post will be useful.

I / UNDERSTANDING of the official paradigm

Game Overview:
This game is Kerbal Space Program (I would call it after "KSP"). It is a game created by an independent publisher (so up there not too long ago, I will talk later in the third part of this aspect) which is called SQUAD. The game concept is very original, and is the only of its kind. That's why he created a community of gamers.
Unlike other space simulators such as "Orbiter" (the best known), in KSP you build yourself your rockets by assembling elements of a library of available parts (caps, tanks, motors, solar panels, boosters, ... ). Then you put on the launch pad, and try to do what you have planned without exploding :).
There are several aspects very "fun" of the game:
* You're not on Earth, but the planet Kerbin with a different solar system
* You are not human, you are a "Kerbal" (little green humanoid with long head)
* There are explosions! If your ship crashed, collide, land too fast ...
You can build pretty much anything. You are only limited by your imagination. You can also build space stations, as well as space-planes (take off and landing from a runway) or space shuttle (take off as rocket and landing on runway) and rovers.
Moreover KSP has two game modes: a "sand box mode" where all construction elements are available, and a "carreer mode" : begin with basic rocktry elements then unlock the construction elements by accumulating “scientific points” by bringing instruments in space and activating them in various places (LEO, high orbit, next to the moon, on the moon ...).
KSP is created with a similar concept of Minecraft (for those who know) that is to say started with a paid beta version (later new versions are free of charge) and accessible source code, which allows modding. Passionates, develop and distribute freely "Mods", that is to say free plug-ins to change aspects of the game (adding new parts for construction, environmental beautification, and even change the basic behavior: aerodynamics in the atmosphere, or others).
It has a big community of players and there are many videos on Youtube.
The best known "Youtuber" on KSP is Scott Manley. (it's not me :) in case you wonder)
As his work in life is in space (from what I understand, he works in the writing of embedded softwares for satelittes) and he is passionate, it is very interesting to listen him as he often talks stories of space exploration, but also very technical aspects of fundamental physics. Moreover, he is Scottish (living in san fransico if i remember well), has a accent, and is funny.
I advise anyone who seeks the truth about space, to look at this game, because it is well done in terms of simulation, and funny.

Understanding the "orbital mechanics" with KSP.
I will suggest you to start a very interresting video where Scott Manley gave a tutorial for new players.
Warning: Beware all figures are wrong, in the sense that they relate to the specific parameters of the planet Kerbin and its specific solar system. For example Kerbin, space begins 70km altitude instead of 100km on earth. Kerbin is 10 times smaller than the earth, ... I suppose that this aspect of the game was thought by the game developpers to be able to go into space with smaller rockets, easier to conceive. Notice that it is possible to change KSP, thanks to a specific mod, to use the parameters of our solar system (I mention it in part III)
This is it :

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0KiePxOuuc
In this video several major points to remember:
* to go into orbit, push (spacenuts say "to burn") at the max height (apogy) of the ballistic trajectory to "circularize" the path to create a stable orbit. To our understanding, we can learn from this that whatever the power of a rocket and the speed at which it can leave the atmosphere, a rocket will never reach an orbit if it can not provide a burn in the vaccum. Hence the necessitty digging the subject "Does rocktry works in vaccum." It also explains that the famous myth of the canon that would put a bullet in space is impossible. Indeed, whatever the power of the canon, and whatever the direction of the shot, the trajectory of the ball will always form an ellipse with the lowest point will be close to its starting point. So the lowest point of this ellipse will not be in space, and so the path will not be a stable orbit.
* To increase the orbit diameter, we must burn in the direction of rotation once. This makes an elliptical orbit. If we want to re-circularize, we must burn again at the top of the ellipse (the apoapsis) to bring the periapsis (the lowest diameter of the ellipse at the same diameter.
* The altitude of an orbit depends only on the orbital speed (no relation to the mass). This allows for example to understand some nonsense of the movie "gravity". If two objects do not have the same orbital speed then they will not have the same orbit. So in the film, it is impossible to meet each orbit debris because if given an acceleration a debris, then it changes the altitude of the peak of its elliptical orbit on the other side of the earth. Therefore, the orbit will be longer in time and distance and therefore no longer meet the ISS because their orbits are not in phase.
* To deorbit (return to the atmosphere), slow down (that is to say push in the direction opposing the orbital velocity) to create an elliptical orbit that passes below the limit of the atmosphere. The upper atmosphere slows the orbital speed "descend" the height of the ellipse where we come from. As explained in the video, push in the direction of the planet is very unefficient for deorbiting.
* Scott speaks at a time of a "mod" that adds realism to the game graphics. Think of it, in our perpective of media fakery. In addition, towards the end, he talks of another "Mod" who's called "Deadly ReEntry" which adds to the gameplay structural failures in the event of overheating. I adress limitations of the game in part III on this post.
* at 13'10 Notice : "The high radiation environment causes a few of the samples to glow. It looks like it will be fun to paint the rocket with this" :blink:

All the videos tutorials, of Scott Manley are interesting. In particular, the video on the "appointment" (wich is called with the french term “rendez-vous”) of space vehicles, to understand how it is supposed to work.
If you want to understand all aspects of space mechanics in the official paradigm, I invite you to follow the tutorial videos of Scott Manley here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?annota ... gPr4q5tj-Q

To go further, and test yourself, must of course buy the game, but there are many KSP video on youtube, and if you want to illustrate a remark in relation to the space in a didactic way, seeking a little, you will surely find a video of KSP relating thart point.

II / CHECKING SPACE STORIES in the official paradigm

The point here is to say:
If it is impossible to do it in KSP, then we can say "Houston we have a problem."
Please note that the reverse is not necessarily true. That is to say, if you can do it in KSP, this does not necessarily mean that it is possible. This is due to the limitations of KSP ( see Part III ).

Better than the rhetoric, I will demonstrate the usefulness of KSP by an example.
Here I will use KSP to a case study: Apollo 11
I will use a video of KSP that I found on the internet. This video is very interresting because it has, at the same time extracts images of the official apollo 11 footage. (I have downloaded this video, in case it would disappear from the internet)
After the video, I give you my analysis:
* the interesting points of space mechanics to understand
* difficulties or impossibilities apollo 11 with respect to the KSP reconstitution
* fakery of ​​the apollo 11 footage

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pw_EmpGACT4
VERY IMPORTANT: This video uses the "NASA" parts added to the game (engines and tanks), but does not use the mod "real solar system." That is to say that the planet is 10 times smaller, thinner atmosphere, smaller moon, closer ... as explained in Part III (fakery and limitations)
My "analysis" of this video:
* 0'19: notice the large number of structures added to stiffen the top of the rocket (see "structural failure" in Part III)
* 2'28 notice how the volume expelled from the nozzle of the engine increases in the Apollo 11 footage. This confirms that what had found Simon on the fact that the rocket engines are becoming less effective as atmospheric pressure decreases (in the thread "Does Rocketry works in vaccum")
* 3'13 after separation of the first stage, we change to the "live from USAF airborne camera" images. At this point I admit to not being able to explain what we see ...
* 4'16 KSP footage only: the rocket reached a speed of orbit, Upstairs 2 is empty, and the rocket is still in the atmosphere (the atmosphere in KSP "ends" 70km). In the "real" apollo 11, stage 2 is used also to begin the lunar injection (from what I recalls, I have to check this) until it is empty, then is ejected with collision course with the moon, and the burn of the injection path to the moon is finished with the command module. In addition, the reconfiguration of the rocket, still in the atmosphere is ... weird. I just think that the "youtuber" made ​​some mistakes here in the reconstitution.
* 4'55 reappearance footage of Apollo 11 for the reconfiguration of the ship before the lunar injection with a short view without "atmospheric halo" of the earth, then we see the footage KSP (which is based on “real” views of modern ISS) where the halo is visble. You can also notice stars and milky way in the KSP footage
* 5'32 I do not understand the images of what is the "docking port" because it must ensure the stability of the whole (LEM + command module) when pushing for lunar injection and decelaration for setting lunar orbit. Also, I do not understand how two astronauts could go through an airlock between the LEM and the command module through the same "docking port".
* 6'27 IMPORTANT for understanding the space mechanic : make a pause at this precise moment. The map view of KSP indicates the future path of the rocket in blue. The rocket will exceed the orbit of the moon (which is white), arrive at its apoapsis (the maximum distance of the elliptical orbit) and start back down to earth. Then the rocket will enter the sphere of gravitational influence of the moon (orange curve) and if nothing is done will come out (curve purple). It is a path "free return". If, against one enters the sphere of influence of the moon while the rocket has not yet reached its apoapsis and so is always trying to move away from the earth, then the moon will catapult the rocket to the outside. This is to understand because of the Apollo 13 mission, where (if I'm not mistaken) the rocket carried a trajectory "free return" going around the moon. (see video Scoot Manley). That said, either we make a tour around the moon first braking (not to be catapulted) then acceleraing out of lunar orbit, then we can make a "U-turn" of the moon. Either we are on a trajectory "free return" and this time we only get closer to the moon (no U turn). The two possibilities are mutually exclusive. (I have to see the apollo 13 movie with tom hanks for that also)
* 6'34 deployment of solar panels. Indeed, in KSP electric batteries can be empty if not recharched and then we have no more electricity and loses control on the rocket. Fortunately apollo 11 had better batteries.
* 7'18 turning and deceleration orbit of the moon. Note here that the orbit is elliptical.
* 7'35 return of apollo 11 footage with the view of the moon from orbit
* 7'45 at periapsis (minimum diameter in an elliptical orbit) correction for circularization. I do not know if that's what happened with Apollo 11, or if they had achieved a circular orbit at once by catching the moon targeted orbit altitude at the first encounter.
* 7'56 Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin are leaving the command module and entering the LEM. Notice that, in KSP, astronuts can not cross the "docking ports" and must leave EVA, unlike the "reality". This is a limitation of KSP
* 8'06 LEM stands, turns, to "burn" in the opposite of the orbital velocity (it is called “burn retrograde”) to create an elliptical orbit in collision with the surface of the moon
* 8'26 LEM must decellerate to avoid the crash. Notice that the landing gears in KSP have a speed limit of impact from which they break if excedded.
* 8'44 As we can see on the NavBall, the indicator "Retrograde" (in yellow) (that is to say the opposite direction of momentum) that moves and goes to the "sky". That means that the glide path becomes more and more vertical. That is to say that there is less and less horizontal velocity relative to the surface of the moon.
* 9'07 in KSP the youtuber had finished to kill the horizontal velocity and is now performing a straight vertical descent.
* 9'14 return of apollo 11 footage : Notice the quick parade of the ground, that's to say the LEM still has a significant horizontal Velocity. If you do not hit the ground with a zero horizontal velocity, the LEM will switch away by the force of its momentum.
* 10'09 EVA. Notice here that in KSP as in "real life" there are no airlocks for the LEM will therefore remained depressurized and equipment aboard exposed to very large differences in temperature
* 10'20 :) no comment on the video fakery of this footage. We know the story
* 10'57 the LEM-have to start its orbital departure at exact time to encounter the command module in orbit. It's a "one shot". It must perform this extraordinary manoeuver to be very near the command module And at the same orbital speed. It would have been easier to go into orbit, and then make small adjustments during several orbits in order to have an easy appointment. Imagine the time that takes currently a ship to make the corrections of orbits before they achieve to dock to the ISS. This is already more realistic.
* 11'33 the LEM-have to start the launch just several seconds before the command unit arrived at its zenith.
* 11'41 IMPORTANT: LEM in KSP takes off and turns immediately to conducts a horizontal burn so caught up as soon as the orbital velocity of the control module. By contrary, Apollo 11 takes off vertically and letting the cameraman on the moon :)
We cannot see in the apollo footage, a turn of the LEM to increase its horizontal velocity.
* 12'03 notice the difficulty of any course corrections performed for an appointment in orbit. Personally in KSP, I can achieve this once on five attemps, while in KSP we have very precise instruments track forecast and real-time calculation of meeting a target is available. So, with the instruments available to the LEM .... Also notice that as with only one engine, you have to constantly change the orientation of the vessel to make adjustments. We can see the pink NavBall indicator that indicates the target (the control module). In KSP we have to align the "prograde" (the direction in which we're going) with this marker of the target, in the goal to have the right orbit angle (compared to equator). In the same time, in the map view, with have to make corrections to minimize the distance of rendez vous.
* 12'19 it is less than 1 km from the target. We have to hurry to make the latest corrections.We must now reduce the speed relative to the target in order not to exceed and be on the same orbital path. Remember: same speed = same orbit. Watch here the indicator "target" on the navball indicating the relative velocity between the LEM and the command module.
* 12'58 in KSP the "docking ports" are magnetized (i don't know for “reality”). Just be near enough for them to hang itself, and forms a single vessel. Notice that fuel is still available in the LEM, and he took the opportunity to transfer it into the reservoir of command module before leaving the LEM in orbit. In "reality" the LEM was sent (by a remote control i assume) in a collision course with the moon. It's a shame we would have liked to see it in orbit forever.
* 13'36 after having transferred Buzz and Neil in the command module and lunar soil samples, we disconnected the LEM and performs the push to get out of the lunar attraction influence. We can notice here that the lunar orbital vessel is not in eccliptique (plane of rotation of the moon is on the same plane of the equatorial plane), I do not know what was the "real" in Apollo 11.
* 13'59 thrust is carried up to have a land perigee below the limit of the atmosphere
* 14'33 the body of command module is jettisoned (reservoir and engine) to have only the re-entry capsule where are the astronuts.
* 15'28 perfect re-entry, barely 3G on astronuts (indicator to the right of the navball)
* 15'49 smooth landing, Apollo has less than 15 km with the boat where Nixon was waiting :)

[EDIT] Here ( http://imgur.com/a/AaQQb#0 ) is a slideshow of another reconstitution of apollo 11 in KSP but this time with the "Real Solar System" mod. Others "strange" things from this simulation :
* re-entry effects at launch, throttle down to not exceed 5G (that's to say that the "NASA parts" included in the game have overpowered capacities, i.e. the engine power doesn't decrease with the decreasing atmospherical pressure).
* On a slide the man says : "I didn't get a proper free-return trajectory. I'm not sure the moon's sphere of influence is large enough for that to work properly."
* On another slide : "6 days to travel to moon".
* "Slowing down to land. Low Moon orbit is almost as fast as low Kerbin orbit, so it's a very long burn": How can't we hear the engine sound during the descent in apollo footage ?
* "Vertical descent for the last few hundred meters" as described in the other reconstitution, the final descent MUST be stricly vertical.
...

[EDIT2] As pointed by Simon, the return of the capsule of the LEM to orbit is't done by a rocket engine, but by a set of 4x4 RCS (monopropellent). So the 2 reconstition are false on this point, as the 2 use a rocket engine.

By examining the experience of the gamers in the difficulties they encountered in their reconstitutions, we can point several crucial points

Voila. All this to show you that if you have any doubt about the possibility of a specific maneuver in space, you can probably find a KSP video conducting it. At this point you can evaluate its difficulty, and serve you a sample to explain to the forum a specific point ib a didactic manner.

III / FAKERY & LIMITATIONS IN THE GAME


Now I want to talk more specifically a few points of the game directly related to the purpose of this forum. Because since I know this forum, some aspects of the game appeared to me in a new light, and I could connect the evolution of the game with several points of this forum.

Year after year, the game has evolved, and more and more "mods" have emerged. The basic game (no mods) does not account for a significant number of aspects of the area. Some gamers have created mods to overcome these shortcomings and add "realism". The gaming community has grown KSP, many players have created channels on YouTube speaking of KSP and KSP became a famous game in the small world of space.

Real Time limitations
An important thing to notice when you play KSP, or watching a video KSP: "real time". Indeed, if your computer is not powerful enough, the "real time" will decrease. You must be careful at this point if a maneuver seems too slow, it's probably the problem that comes. Time in KSP is seen in the top left, and measures the time in seconds from launch. So if the seconds in the top left are not seconds, the game is lagging.
In addition, it is possible in KSP once you are in space and engines stopped to fast forward time to pass more quickly over time, for example the transfer "Earth-Moon". During the "time warp" no manouevers are possible, the rocket is simply following the path on which it is located.

Stuctural Failures
An important part of the "fun" of the game is to see your rocket explodes. Therefore, since the first version of the game, physical game engine calculates real-time constraints between different elements of the vessel. For example, if the pressure is not balanced, the rocket could destroy because parts have different constraints. As soon as one starts to build very long, complex rockets, heavy, with several stages, it becomes a real challenge to not explode in flight. An other example, if you build a rover (yes you can do it in KSP) don't forget to retract solar panels before beginning to drive on the surface, because they will break, due to the light rigidity of these parts. Therefore as versions of the game was released, the developers have changed the game. They were first add pieces that stiffen the parts together (the ones i showed you in video on the launch pad). But as players complained much that their rocket disintegrated, a "mod" was created by a player to change the internal settings of the game and make the attachment points between the parts more rigid by reducing the actual physical constraints . I think this is a point that deserves to be dug to show the very significant technical difficulties with the rigidity and strength of materials. For example, in KSP when trying to create a structure in space that approaches the ISS we soon confront a big problem is the rigidity of the "docking ports". A video in the tread "ISS" talks about this issue, saying that the shape of the ISS while length is an absurdity in terms of Engineering. To have a rigid structure, which supports for change in orbits, or to withstand shocks due to docking of vessels refueling or the shuttle, it would be better to build a structure that "looped" on itself.

"Real Solar System" & NASA “cooperation” in KSP

At one point, a player created a mod called "Real Solar System." As the name suggests, this "mod" changes the internal parameters of the game so that the parameters of our solar system known to be in the game: earth dimension, thickness of the atmosphere, gravity, remoteness, size and gravity of the moon, the other planets ...
Once this "mod" was available, many players have tried to revive the apollo program.
Of course, at this stage, the game did not have very powerful engines, or large enough reservoirs, since they were designed for a planet 10 times smaller. So those who simulated the apollo program with conventional parts of the game, making very complex rockets, with many tanks tied together, and many engines had many difficulties (with rigidity and lags). That's why another "mod" was created by the players, with new pieces "Saturn V like" with overpowered engines.
It is "strangely" that a bit later a new official version of the game was released in collaboration with NASA, and has provided new rocket parts (engines, tanks, boosters ..) that took technical characteristics of the "real" Saturn V rockets"

"Deadly ReEntry"
A mod allows you to add "realism" a KSP by applying a new constraint rocket to parts: the temperature rise due to thermal heat gain in the phase of atmospheric entry. Each piece has a new parameter that defines the maximum temperature it supports before disintegrating, and real-time game physics engine is modified to calculate the temperature of the parts. Here notice that "Deadly Reentry" is effective only in atmospheric phase entry and not for the rest of the game. This is important because it would be boring to see the strain on parts of rocket (and the spacesuits EVA) with respect to differences in day / night temperature... :)

"Life Support"
In the base game, the astronauts can only die if the capsule in which they are dissolved, or they experience a fall from too high, or that another object struck at high speed.
The spacenuts can not die of thirst, hunger, or excessive acceleration (G).
The mod "life support" has been created for this purpose and adds some rocket parts for boarding food and water for long trips, and change the game engine to calculate in real time the consumtion of water and food. With this mod, you can also kill astronuts at takeoff, or reentry if there is too much G (positive or negative).
It should be noted that aspects missing from this mod:
* Temperature difference in day / night EVA and thermosphere issues
* atmospheric pressure on other planets
* radiations

"Visual Enhancement"
some mods offer astonishing improvements at the visual level. For example volumetric clouds are possible with a mod and whose movemenst are visible from the space. There is little doubt that NASA must have this kind of simulator to offer more "realistic" footage of the environment. And as it is said in many threads on space on the forum, their simulations had impoved other time: addition of "atmospheric halo", adding the stars and the Milky way, night views of the earth ... even if this is still far from perfect and is still "debunkable".
Notice there is no mod to add bubbles in space ;)

There are many other mods that add “realism” in KSP. This is not an exhaustive view. You can wander through the library of mods on the official website of KSP.

CONCLUSION:

I hope that this subject will be useful, and some will have better understanding of the official paradigm of orbital mechanics in order to expose the inconsistencies and impossibilities, and perhaps do a search on the net for KSP videos to illustrate the purpose of their research of "space hoaxes" to make them more understandable to readers of the forum.

I had the idea for this post, reading the different topics on the forum dedicated to space, and reading some of the comments that apparently showed a misunderstanding of the official paradigm, and criticized with non "relevant" arguments. I hope you understand what i mean, it's not to criticize, it's to improve the knowledge of the official paradigm. Also, if you are looking for videos on the internet for space, I'm sure you've already fallen by chance on video of KSP, so I told myself explaining this game could allow users to use these videos as illustrations on the forum.
This post took me a lot of time because I write very slowly in English, and have reading rereading several times myself. Feel free to correct left mispellings. Thank you for reading it, and apologize in advance if there are mistakes in English.

The analysis of space footage made ​​here on this forum proves in a definitive way, that space is a hoax, but if we want to demonstrate scientifically technical or theoretical impossibilities or manipulations, it's much more difficult.
Personally, I think the "official spatial mechanic" is very consistent with itself, and it is very difficult to point impossibilities, but it's possible, like what i have done with this analysis of apollo 11 in KSP. KSP can be useful for this task.

On the other hand, i think also that subjects discussed on this forum are very interesting to expose the frauds on the basements of the official paradigm and can destroy it if these researches are led in extend, in particular :
* Does rocketry works in vaccuum
* life hazard of radiation, temperature differences in light and shadow, thermosphere.
* Technical problems and Engineeering (strength of materials and structures, ability to manage the temperature and radiation ...)
* earth / universe model, gravity

thank you, i guess this post was understandable :P and useful :rolleyes:
fadge
Critical Mass
Member
Posts: 544
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 10:33 pm

Re: The MOON HOAX

Unread post by Critical Mass »

I don't know about you guys but I certainly smell something with these stories...

The Mysterious Smell of Moondust

I like the bit about how we have no moon dust to study on Earth because...
All of the samples brought back by Apollo astronauts have been in contact with moist, oxygen-rich air. Any smelly chemical reactions (or evaporations) ended long ago.

This wasn't supposed to happen. Astronauts took special "thermos" containers to the moon to hold the samples in vacuum. But the jagged edges of the dust unexpectedly cut the seals of the containers...
This happened every time?

The Moon Smells: Apollo Astronauts Describe Lunar Aroma
"In a nut-shell, I believe that the astronauts all smelled unsatisfied dangling bonds on the lunar dust … which were readily satisfied in a second by the lunar module atmosphere, or nose membrane moisture," Taylor told Space.com.
Post Reply