/sci/ - Science & Math

Read more about the real-time Apollo 11 website: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/apollo-11-in-real-time-50-years-later
Additional Apollo 11 events: https://www.nasa.gov/specials/apollo50th/events.html

Apollo 11 Lunar Surface Journal: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11.html

>>10810348

There should be a sticky for the entirety of the 50th anniversary (July 16-24), and it may as well be this thread. I therefore formally call upon TPTB to sticky this thread.

Useful timeline: https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_11i_Timeline.htm

Fun fact: all three crew members were born in 1930. Even the dates are somewhat notable. Collins was born on Halloween (Oct 31), and Aldrin was born on the modern Inauguration Day (Jan 20). Armstrong's date (August 5) is the exception.

Collins was the first person to perform two EVAs, during Gemini 10-but of course, he didn't do any here. Aldrin was the first person to perform three, during Gemini 12-his moonwalk would be his fourth and final EVA. But of course, Armstrong's one-and-only lifetime EVA was the big one.

The Lunar crash site of Eagle's ascent stage remains unknown-one of the few pieces of LM hardware the final disposition site of which is unknown. Stooke et. al. have made modern investigations of the crash sites (and the S-IVB crash sites are much easier to see):

http://apollo.mem-tek.com/A12_LM_impact_site/A12_LM_impact_site.html

WHEN WILL I SEE YOU AGAIN?

Post moar buzz

finna

boutta

>>10810955
shit wrong pic

An amazing achievement in spaceflight history. NASA started out barely being able to reach space and not even knowing about some of it's basic properties, but eventually they have done something so ambitious so spectacular that no one has been able to top, yet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYnF31el-ik

Pretty nicely done site. Just hitting T-10 minutes right now on the "real time" feed (ie,. where it was in 1969)

T-5 minutes. Swing arm retract.

we are GO

>>10810981
Saturn 5 was just an incredible rocket really. Damn shame they didn't just keep evolving it and trying to push down costs next, STS set the US back 30 years of progress.

>>10811234
saturn V ate too much into the colored welfare budget

T-1 minute here we go. Full internal power coming up.

God such a sexy liftoff.

LAUNCH!

SEE YOU SOON!

separation

Thank you big government liberals what an achievement.

Thank you white men and Christian civilisation

brb going on vacation to the moon

>>10811269
nice CG, err... animated models???? Didn't know that they used models to animate what happened during different phases of launch.

>>10811279
what did you expect them to do in 1969? just sit there?

>>10811258
The only cool thing big govt. liberals ever did

>>10811291
Well, they helped win WWII and got the US out of the Depression. Roosevelt was the shizz.

>>10811279
What? Have you never heard of this thing called a "camera" before?

sextant readings going on now

T+ 1 hour

>>10811237
kek, more like into the 1% pork

What would you say if you were the first person to step onto Mars, /sci/?

>>10811385
I probably would've planned something incredible and inspiring. Something that would've sounded amazing in the history books. Only to say something like "Oh my god, I'm finally here."

>>10811385
small step for a woman, huge leap for Reddit

>>10811385
N

Coming up on TLI

>>10810591
Buzz almost didn't make it.

Deke Slayton offered to let Armstrong swap him out for Jim Lovell. Neil spent like a day mulling over the decision

>>10811429
you know that's why they'll have a time delay in there

Seperation soon

>>10811629
Why does Neil get to pick who’s on board?

>>10811653

Neil proved his mettle by surviving (getting out of a bad situation on his own initiative) Gemini 8. That is the reason why he was given the first moon landing command. If anything had gone wrong at any point, no one had a better proven track record/better shot of fixing it than Neil.

>>10811649

On a profile flight, the vehicle stack can really be thought of as ten pieces.

-The three rocket stages,
-the four components of the spacecraft, (command module/service module/lunar module descent stage/lunar module ascent stage)
-and another three bits: the first/second interstage ring, the launch escape tower, and the "SLA" (Spacecraft/Lunar module Adapter), the conical fairing which pops off when the CSM flies free for the first time, independently of the S-IVB to which the LM is still attached. This moment of separation was known as "SLA-sep".

starting at 30:20, this is all perfectly explained in a brief animation in Moonwalk One. In all, there's about 12-13 physical separation/docking events during a profile mission.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GVpoSrqMMg

The instrument unit, the Saturn V's onboard guidance computer, was assembled as part of the S-IVB (third stage). Although really a separate part (among millions), the Instrument Unit was part of the S-IVB for all practical purposes once a flight was underway. Likewise, the conical aft interstage assembly between the second stage and the third stage, was technically part of the third stage when built. However, during stack assembly it was permanently fixed to the second stage, so that the stage and the (front) interstage fell away as a single piece (depicted at 30:40 in the video). This was due partially to a clearance issue around aft rockets: since the third stage had only a single J-2 engine as opposed to the second stage's five J-2 engines, there was much more clearance (and thus less concern that the spent stage would bump the rockets during separation) at this staging event.

>>10811653
Deke does, he's the director of flight crew operations, he offered to let Neil pick because Neil was commander for that mission

>>10810459
This

I'm surprised that moon hoaxers haven't raided this thread yet.

>>10812162
/sci/ doesn't net enough (you)s to warrant a raid desu
plus there are autists here who actually know what they're talking about

>>10812271
Fair enough, but I figured that at least one would try to spread "da troof!" here. Or maybe it happened and the mods cleaned it up before I noticed.

Some good quizzes:

Name the Apollo CSMs and LMs, by their official call signs/nicknames:

https://www.jetpunk.com/user-quizzes/130447/apollo-spacecraft

Name the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo astronauts:

https://www.sporcle.com/games/justbass77/project-mercury-gemini-and-apollo-astronauts

Dumping uniform traverse maps of the six Lunar landings.

>>10812395
Nice, thanks.

17 minutes to PB&J

God damn I love being American

>>10812678

It seems quite clear that Apollo 17's EVA-2, going up to the foot of the South Massif, is the farthest that humans have ever traveled away from their spacecraft during an EVA of any kind, spacewalk, moonwalk or otherwise (discounting the LRV as a spacecraft). Despite the easily-checked small sample (of Lunar landings vs spaceflights, esp. Bruce McCandless in the "jetpack" (my word)), I have tried to find this autistic fact explicitly stated in the literature somewhere, but I don't see it. Soliticing help.

I am also very interested in exactly WHEN the landing-gear were extended on each mission (generally, this occurred when the complete spacecraft was in lunar orbit as a prep-step), as this is a basic, definite, irreversible(?) mechanical step which is akin to the separation/docking events. This makes sense in that you want the smallest target for micrometeoroids and other shit flying around, during transit, until the time comes(?) Again, I solicit help for details here. The Apollo Lunar Journal itself has gaps here, but I seem to remember another website which archives play-by-play dialogue by the astronauts-spacelog, spacelab or similar. I raised details about this in a recent /sfg/ OP:

>>/sci/thread/S10735734

I am aware of a real-time Apollo 17 site and the Apollo 11 one mentioned ITT. Just haven't dug into these to answer my question. Tbqh I had trouble navigating the Apollo 17 site last time I played with it.

Pic: The Falcon's Descent Propulsion System (DPS) engine bell crumpled a bit (as designed) during a hard landing. Consider the program's rocket engines themselves, and then ask about subsequent rocket engines. The first stage had the F-1 rocket, the second stage had five J-2 rockets, and the third stage had a single J-2 rocket. The Service Module had its so-called Service Propulsion System (SPS) complete with bell, and the LM had its Descent Propulsion System (DPS) and Ascent Propulsion Systems (APS).

>>10812735
>I am also very interested in exactly WHEN the landing-gear were extended on each mission (generally, this occurred when the complete spacecraft was in lunar orbit as a prep-step), as this is a basic, definite, irreversible(?) mechanical step which is akin to the separation/docking events.

You have probably already seen this, but if not it might be of some interest:

http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum29/HTML/000966.html

>>10812370
7 Apollo 7
8 Apollo 8
9 Gumdrop Spider
10 Charlie Brown Snoopy
11 Columbia Eagle
12 Yankee Clipper Intrepid
13 Odyssey Aquarius
14 Kitty Hawk Antares
15 err...
16 Casper Orion
17 America Challenger

Most aesthetic insignia comin' through

>>10812894

Interestingly, several craft names were recycled for the shuttles (both recycled Shuttle-names were destroyed): Columbia (a Perennial American thing: District of Columbia, Columbia-South Carolina, the country of Colombia... ) Challenger, Endeavor.

As to Best Badge, I must disagree, oh no sir, I must say you're wrong, oh won't you listen to me.

>tfw Apollo 15 stamps

>>10812972
Yeah that one is pretty damn majestic, too. The origin of their motto was the naval academy's motto, Ex Scientia, Tridens.


Something about Apollo XVII's patch is more "modern," though, and I like it. I don't know how to explain it.

>>10812996

Who dis is, is dat Buzz?

Is dat Little West over yonder?

>>10813011
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/images11.html
>110:31:47 Rightward of 5885. This frame from Buzz's plus-Z pan is the only good Hasselblad picture of Neil on the lunar surface. Eric Nelson has produced an enhance version ( 320k ) of the portion of the image that includes the flag, the SWC, and Neil at the MESA. A closer detail ( 195k ) shows Neil packing the bulk sample with an open rockbox on the MESA table. See the discussion following 110:31:47.

>Neil took this picture of Buzz at about 110:03:24. Buzz has just deployed the Solar Wind Collector (SWC). Neil took the photo toward the southeast. Buzz is standing flat-footed next to the SWC, facing Neil, who is at about the 2 o'clock position out from the LM. In the lower right corner, notice the scratch marks that the TV cable made as Neil pulled it out. The multiple tracks were made by the individual cable loops scraping along the ground. We can see underneath the engine bell. Most of the surface in this image has not been disturbed as yet, and in the places where Neil and Buzz have walked, the disturbed surface is darker. Good illustration of this very common phenomenon. Jack Schmitt speculates that the Descent Engine plume swept away the smallest particles, leaving a higher than normal percentage of larger particles. The more jagged surface is a better reflector of sunlight than the normal surface and, therefore, appears brighter. Certainly, from orbit, the areas around the landed LM's are brighter than the normal surface. As they walk around, the astronauts disturb this modified surface and, in effect, restore it's normal condition. We see the MESA, in shadow, to the right of Buzz. On the front of Buzz's suit, we have the RCU, the camera bracket, and just above his crotch, the "Red Apple" activator for the purge valve. He has some dirt on his knees. A detail shows a snap hook fitted to the end of his neckring tiedown.

>when you and your bro finally make it

It sucks how there are scumbags who deny the moon landings. What is there to gain by saying that the landings never happened?

>>10813202
a feeling of intellectual superiority, just once
attention

That's all I got

>>10813202
our government has deliberately lied to us in many many ways
they just expand those lies to include the moon landing

https://apolloinrealtime.org/11/

>watch NASA movies from decades ago
>half the supporting characters(read: nerds back in Houston) are southern
>watch NASA movies from the last 10 years
>southerners are non-existant, dialogue is "I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE" fanfic tier, and half of the cast is some shade of brown
interesting phenomenon to say the least

>>10813339
Apollo era southern chads
SLS era millennial virgins

Things could have been so different.

>>10813339
>dialogue is "I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE" fanfic tier
Care to give examples? Or at least post the film in question?

>>10813202
(You)s

>>10813713
The upside to Kennedy's framing it as a Great Race to the Moon was that it made both sides throw a lot of resources into a sustained space effort.

The downside was that, when a race is over, the guy that won and the guy that lost both stop running.

Am I the only one amazed that we managed to do this 50 years ago? That it had only been a little more than 60 years since we couldn’t get a fixed wing aircraft into the air, and hadn’t launched an object into orbit since around a decade earlier?
And there were many things that could go horribly wrong, dooming the crew to a painful death. Yet it all went fine and they returned back to the earth safely. It’s mind boggling that there were no fatalities in space during the Apollo missions.

The Saturn V and the CSM/LM keeps blowing my mind. The most powerful rocket to successfully launch had F1 engines that were so powerful that they were actually slightly breaking down while burning. And it has brought the heaviest payload known to man into space. And aside from Apollo 13, the Saturn V safely brought men to the moon.
It just worked.
The CSM has also worked relatively well even with a very simple onboard computer that was revolutionary in many ways and helped spark the age for more compact computers. And these vessels combined brought 3 men, a lander and even scientific equipment (and later on a rover) to the moon, which is still unmatched to this day.

It’s a shame that after Apollo, there wouldn’t be any more manned deep space missions. I know some might love the Space Shuttle but it failed to serve as a low-cost, low-maintenance vessel that could be launched frequently and was very expensive in the end. It’s also probably the most dangerous space vessel ever made. It’s assumed we might have been able to have sent men to Mars by now if all the funds for the Shuttle was spent on something else.

I really hope that NASA manages to send men to the moon again with the SLS/Orion system, even though many argues that it’s unlikely considering the budget constraints. But if it would happen, even Mars, I would be very happy as it will pay a homage to the Apollo project and also the SLS/Orion are the spiritual successor to theSaturn V, even resembling it

>>10815568
SLS is the bastard child of Saturn V and Shuttle. Capsule on top like Saturn V, retarded solid boosters like Shuttle.

>>10815888
>booster sustainer design
it's like they never learn

>>10811385
I would not say Whordiot.

>>10811629
I wonder if Lovell would have snapped a decent pic of Armstrong.

>>10811946
>Neil proved his mettle by surviving (getting out of a bad situation on his own initiative) Gemini 8. That is the reason why he was given the first moon landing command. If anything had gone wrong at any point, no one had a better proven track record/better shot of fixing it than Neil.

Yep. And Aldrin had the best experience in EVA, so he was the obvious choice for #2.

>>10815943

I just learned the other day that Mike Collins was the first human to perform two EVAs, a neat feather in his cap. He also flew chase a time or two during the X-15 program.

Sure does take a while to get to the moon

>>10816442
YOU'RE TELLING ME!

>>10815888
>>10815903
delet this

>>10815183
The Martian is egregious in this regard desu. Gravity is as well.
Especially when compared to movies like Armageddon or Apollo 13.
Interstellar is less offensive, mainly due to it prioritizing the people instead of the premise.
It's quite fitting since the main character is played by Matthew McConaughey, a Texan, which fits my theory.

If your space movie lacks southerners it's gonna be garbage.

>>10816568
I agree, nobody's ever gone to the moon except on the shoulders of Southerners

TV transmission coming up

>>10810348
Random-ish moon question:
A science programme about the moon I was watching the other night said that when the moon eventually 'escapes' the Earth, Earth's rotation will get wobbly without the moon's stabilising influence. It used a basketball spinning on a finger as an analogy. I understand the basketball - when it slows down, our gravity causes it to fall one way or another. What are the forces that would cause Earth's wobble? The gravity of the other planets when we get nearer to them?

>>10818418
>What are the forces that would cause Earth's wobble?
Think of a perfectly made top. When spun, this top will spin with no wobble (assuming the surface it's on is perfectly flat). Now imagine a chip was made on this top, now the top will have a wobble as it spins. The top spinning is analogous to the Earth spinning, and the chip is analogous to the fact that the Earth doesn't have an even mass distribution. The Earth is lumpy. The moon applies a persistent force on the Earth through it's gravity and thus dampens the wobble. The other planets apply forces on the Earth through their gravity too, but since that force constantly changes due to the motion of all the planets relative to each other these forces act to made the wobble more pronounced.

Space is friction-less, thus even the slightest motion can have huge effects if given enough time. The Solar system is very old (billions of years) thus even the slight wobble of the Earth can have larger effects over time.

Without seeing the program in question, I don't know what exactly was being conveyed by the basketball analogy, but I feel that it was an over simplified one.

I hope this answers your questions.

Man, am I sure glad we're not some sort of abstract life form living in a galactic cloud of hydrocarbons. Earth is lovely.

>>10810348
The moon landing is fake tho

>>10818700

No, it isn't.

>>10810348
>fun fact
That american flag is now decolored due to MAGIC SPACE RAYS, that means that the moon is now property of france

>>10818781
Prove it

>>10818799
nigga we have pictures smhtbhfam

>>10818912
Right, because those are impossible to doctor

>>10818920
have you seen the scans of the original film that aren't downscaled? You know how much damn work that'd take to doctor all of them?

>>10818920
here
http://tothemoon.ser.asu.edu/gallery/Apollo
enjoy
this link is 256MB
http://tothemoon.ser.asu.edu/data_a70/AS11/processed/AS11-040-5874.png

>>10818700
>The moon landing is fake tho
No it wasn't. This website covers most of the common reasons why the Apollo moon landings were real.

http://www.clavius.org/index.html

>>10818799
>Prove it
You do know that since you're the one making the claim, then the burden of proof is on you? But fine...

If the Apollo moon landings were faked, then the Soviets would have known about it and would have exposed it. They had the capability to track objects around the moon, and had their own moon program to compare to NASA's very public program. On top of that, the Soviets would have exposed this supposed hoax because not only would it be a moral blow to their greatest enemy, the United States, but it would have been a great propaganda boost for its own people. The Soviets have started the whole Space Race as a propaganda tool against the United States, not exposing perhaps the greatest hoax in the 20th century would've been inconsistent with the character of the Soviet Union.

>>10818781
>>10819039
stop replying to low-quality bait

>>10810348
>50 years ago
>last manned moon mission: Apollo 17 on December 11, 1972
>46+ years ago

46 years since the last manned moon mission.

God bless the U.S.A

>>10819376
Indeed. America should've made the moon the 52nd state.

>>10812395
>>10812388
>>10812386
Thank you, anon, and thank you lunar rover!

IMO this vehicule is the absolute apogee of the apollo mission.

Did they had a procedure in case of rover failure? Consider 5km by feet on lunar surface?

>>10819406
Yeah, they could only go as far as they had enough oxygen/water to hump it back on foot.

>>10819511
I think it was Schmitt that complained about that. The chance of a rover failure that far out was super small

>>10819406

Yes. The contingency was for the astronauts to simply walk back in the event of LRV failure. Although they went almost ten klicks out on their furthest sojourn (Apollo 17 EVA-2), they never went past the PLSS' (life support backpack's) point-of-no-return. So they could go a fair piece out, but not /that/ far.

WHAT'S THAT UP THERE?

>>10818790
top kek

>>10816568
>If your space movie lacks southerners it's gonna be garbage.
I have never realized this untill you mentioned it. The apollo era was forged by southeners!

>>10819559
cheese

>>10815903
gotta feed them ballistic missile boys

any seen the new apollo 11 movie, want to go see it today

>>10819984
best godddamn space move ever. See it in IMAX

>>10820006
>best godddamn space move ever
compared to?

>>10820121
everything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP7jT_n44T4

>>10820225
>Over one hour long
Wouldn't it have hurt to time stamp something important within the video?

I refuse to believe people actually believe the moon landings happened: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zcz0eL_bYsI

>>10820245
Why? Because you can't figure out how it's done?

I'll just drop this then. http://www.clavius.org/ The landings happened, if they were faked then the Soviets would've known and called out the US very publicly.

>>10820251
>http://www.clavius.org
Why do you have to resort to a site made by someone who had nothing to do with the missions? Shouldn't NASA be the ones defending themselves?
>if they were faked then the Soviets would've known and called out the US very publicly.
Don't you think that if the Soviets were really an enemy to the US, they would have claimed the landings were fake even if they were real? The fact they just accepted defeat and dissolved into Russia is much more suspicious and suggests they were working with the US the whole time.

>>10820275
>Why do you have to resort to a site made by someone who had nothing to do with the missions?
Because I'm tired of having to tackle each little argument made by a moon hoaxer, that website covers the general points in sufficient detail.

>Shouldn't NASA be the ones defending themselves?
They're under no obligation to counter argue over a point that has been settled for decades.

>Don't you think that if the Soviets were really an enemy to the US, they would have claimed the landings were fake even if they were real?
No. Because the United States was very public about their moon program. Live television, broadcasting the mission progress, public documents that anyone can go look up, etc. The fact that the landings happened was so widely known that it would look incredibly stupid for the Soviets to deny.

>The fact they just accepted defeat and dissolved into Russia is much more suspicious and suggests they were working with the US the whole time.
Prove that the Soviets were working with the US at the time. I don't just mean show some times the US and the USSR occasionally agreed on things, I mean actual evidence such as classified documents secret trades, and taped conversations between officials about this alliance (and just before you go off on a tangent about this, also prove that the landings were faked). Just speculating that such an alliance exists despite all evidence to the contrary won't do. Either actually back up your arguments, or go away.

>>10820294
>Because I'm tired of having to tackle each little argument made by a moon hoaxer, that website covers the general points in sufficient detail.
Why do you trust the arguments made on the website? Is it because you want the moon landings to be real so you'll accept anything?
>They're under no obligation to counter argue over a point that has been settled for decades.
They absolutely are, they're funded by the public and they're the ones that claim to have landed on the moon. There's no one better to prove what they claimed to have done.
>No. Because the United States was very public about their moon program. Live television, broadcasting the mission progress, public documents that anyone can go look up, etc. The fact that the landings happened was so widely known that it would look incredibly stupid for the Soviets to deny.
But with this logic, if the landings were faked, the Soviets still wouldn't have called them out because they would have looked incredibly stupid, which answers why they didn't deny them.
>Prove that the Soviets were working with the US at the time. I don't just mean show some times the US and the USSR occasionally agreed on things, I mean actual evidence such as classified documents secret trades, and taped conversations between officials about this alliance
They were working with each other because they were both involved in the same goal - the US landing on the moon. The USSR allowed this to happen by playing the role of the loser, they were supposedly ahead of the US in terms of rocketry and getting humans in space, but then they started to falter, while the US advanced. To you that's just a coincidence, to me that's them working together.

>(and just before you go off on a tangent about this, also prove that the landings were faked). Just speculating that such an alliance exists despite all evidence to the co
webm related, notice the wobble of the prop as it spins? Impossible if it was actually in the very near vacuum of space.

>>10820332
>Why do you trust the arguments made on the website?
Because they are backed up with sources and evidence.
>They absolutely are, they're funded by the public and they're the ones that claim to have landed on the moon.
Wrong, NASA have provided more than enough evidence to verify their side of the story. The countless photographs, videos etc are all available to the public and rock samples are available for third party experts to verify and study from different countries. NASA have better things to do than explain to the one-hundreth retard why the Van Allen belts weren't insta-death zones of doom.
>if the landings were faked, the Soviets still wouldn't have called them out because they would have looked incredibly stupid
The Soviets were monitoring the whole thing, if they had any sort of solid evidence that the astronauts were not where they claimed to be then they would've released it and the US would have a lot to answer to. This never happened of course because the Soviets could not find any fault.
>then they started to falter, while the US advanced. To you that's just a coincidence
It's not a coincidence though. There are several factors which caused the Soviets to fall behind in their space program, some of which are touched upon in this article:
https://www.airspacemag.com/space/apollo-why-the-soviets-lost-180972229/

>>10820332
>Why do you trust the arguments made on the website?
Because I'm and aerospace engineer and have looked thorough the site myself, and at least his articles about spaceflight technology seem correct to me (specifically the "Technology" and "Space Vehicle" sections). Plus his "Conspiracy", which just covers the logic of a conspiracy seem pretty strong. This article http://www.clavius.org/scale.html, is a good one. Now you don't have to only trust my word, you can look up the stuff he brings up himself. In posting that website link I was hoping that you can find a specific point about the moon landings on that website and learn something before you most likely post a refuted point I've seen many times. The site wasn't meant to be a primary point for the moon landings.

>They absolutely are, they're funded by the public and they're the ones that claim to have landed on the moon. There's no one better to prove what they claimed to have done.
No they're not obligated, because they have already proved it.

>But with this logic, if the landings were faked, the Soviets still wouldn't have called them out because they would have looked incredibly stupid
No. The Soviets had the ability to track spacecraft around the moon. If the Apollo spacecraft wasn't where it was expected, then the Soviets would know. The Soviets also had samples of moon rocks to compare against what Apollo brought back. If the landings were faked, then the moon rocks would have to be fake and thus the Soviets would have known. In short, if the moon landings were faked then the Soviets would still have known that it was fake, been able to gather the evidence of the hoax, and exposed the Americans.

Part 1 of 2 (or more).

>>10820332
Continuing >>10820380

>They were working with each other because they were both involved in the same goal - the US landing on the moon.
Considering that the US intended to use the moon landings as proof of capitalist superiority over communisim, and the fact that the Soviets put alot of pride behind their space program, I'm having a hard time seeing the Soviets willingly play loser.

>they were supposedly ahead of the US in terms of rocketry and getting humans in space, but then they started to falter, while the US advanced.
Because the US had the spare money and infrastructure to push ahead rapidly while the Soviets didn't take the American advanced seriously until it was too late. The Soviets had an early lead because at the start of the race, the US didn't take spaceflight seriously.

>To you that's just a coincidence, to me that's them working together.
And you have failed to bring up evidence.

>webm related, notice the wobble of the prop as it spins? Impossible if it was actually in the very near vacuum of space.
How does a wobble prove that the shot didn't take place in space? The spacecraft was most likely "wobbly" because it was trying to maintain an axis of rotation while it's uneven mass distribution was making that tricky. Plus the Apollo film cameras ran at a low frame rate to conserve film, which was then sped up to the standard 24fps which makes the motions recording look strange. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_TV_camera

>>10820363
>Because they are backed up with sources and evidence.
So you trust/agree with them all? Can you provide one of these sources?
>Wrong, NASA have provided more than enough evidence to verify their side of the story. The countless photographs, videos etc are all available to the public
The photos and videos are what make people question the landings in the first place. Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWJPMr2UteA
>rock samples are available for third party experts to verify and study from different countries
So why was a fake moon rock given to the Netherlands by Buzz Aldrin? So called "moon rocks" can also be found in Antarctica, so it proves nothing. There's also no footage of the Astronauts collecting any moon rocks despite it needing to be a large part of their mission considering 300+kg were collected over the course of the missions.
>The Soviets were monitoring the whole thing, if they had any sort of solid evidence that the astronauts were not where they claimed to be then they would've released it and the US would have a lot to answer to. This never happened of course because the Soviets could not find any fault.
How would they have proven that? What evidence would you have accepted from them and how could you trust it was real?
>It's not a coincidence though. There are several factors which caused the Soviets to fall behind in their space program, some of which are touched upon in this article:
>https://www.airspacemag.com/space/apollo-why-the-soviets-lost-180972229/
Everything went wrong for the Soviets, while it was pretty much plain sailing for the US, who nailed the landing first time. Both countries were heavily involved in propaganda at that time, and that article is essentially reciting the propaganda story.

please just report moan hoaxers instead of arguing with them

>>10820380
>Because I'm and aerospace engineer and have looked thorough the site myself, and at least his articles about spaceflight technology seem correct to me (specifically the "Technology" and "Space Vehicle" sections). Plus his "Conspiracy", which just covers the logic of a conspiracy seem pretty strong. This article http://www.clavius.org/scale.html, is a good one. Now you don't have to only trust my word, you can look up the stuff he brings up himself. In posting that website link I was hoping that you can find a specific point about the moon landings on that website and learn something before you most likely post a refuted point I've seen many times. The site wasn't meant to be a primary point for the moon landings.
Have you engineered anything that went to the moon? Do you have any first-hand experience with the Apollo technology? Or is everything second-hand?
>No they're not obligated, because they have already proved it.
So why was the clavius website made? Does NASA need help?
>No. The Soviets had the ability to track spacecraft around the moon. If the Apollo spacecraft wasn't where it was expected, then the Soviets would know. The Soviets also had samples of moon rocks to compare against what Apollo brought back. If the landings were faked, then the moon rocks would have to be fake and thus the Soviets would have known. In short, if the moon landings were faked then the Soviets would still have known that it was fake, been able to gather the evidence of the hoax, and exposed the Americans.
If the Soviets detected the Americans weren't where they were supposed to be, how would they have proven it? "Moon rocks" can be found in Antarctica.

>>10820430
The "fake moon rock" in the Netherlands was due to a misunderstanding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_lunar_sample_displays#History

There are no other reports of fake moon rocks anywhere else.

>>10820462
>Have you engineered anything that went to the moon? Do you have any first-hand experience with the Apollo technology?
No, but I was educated on many of the engineering principles that Apollo would use. Everything pertaining to Apollo seems sound to me.

>So why was the clavius website made? Does NASA need help?
Because someone wanted to debunk moon hoaxers and also wanted a website to archive these debunks. According to the website, NASA didn't instruct the site makers to create it. NASA doesn't need help because they're not interested in fighting moon hoaxers. Which makes sense considering that they have been around for decades and never have proven anything.

>If the Soviets detected the Americans weren't where they were supposed to be, how would they have proven it?
They can note down the coordinates they have found of the spacecraft, or none if the spacecraft didn't even exist, and release the data for everyone to see.

>"Moon rocks" can be found in Antarctica.
Yes, but space rocks found on Earth will be noticeably different from rocks gathered from space. This is because the heat of reentry partially melts the rocks thus changing their composition slightly. The Apollo rocks show no sign of this.

You still have failed to bring evidence to your claim that the moon landings are fake. Either back up your claims, or leave.

>>10810348
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11
>He described the event as "one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind.
>[a]

>>10820404
>Considering that the US intended to use the moon landings as proof of capitalist superiority over communisim, and the fact that the Soviets put alot of pride behind their space program, I'm having a hard time seeing the Soviets willingly play loser.
If they had so much pride in their space program they wouldn't have fucked it up like they did. It was deliberate. While they had to play the role of the loser, they at least didn't have to take the risk of faking the landings - the US obviously played this role as they had Hollywood. Pic related.
>Because the US had the spare money and infrastructure to push ahead rapidly while the Soviets didn't take the American advanced seriously until it was too late. The Soviets had an early lead because at the start of the race, the US didn't take spaceflight seriously.
They played their roles perfectly.
>And you have failed to bring up evidence.
What masonic flag did Buzz Aldrin take with him on the Apollo mission? Can you describe it? Or post it? Then describe what the coat of arms of Russia looks like.
>How does a wobble prove that the shot didn't take place in space? The spacecraft was most likely "wobbly" because it was trying to maintain an axis of rotation while it's uneven mass distribution was making that tricky. Plus the Apollo film cameras ran at a low frame rate to conserve film, which was then sped up to the standard 24fps which makes the motions recording look strange. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_TV_camera
What technology was used to keep the spacecraft level like that? Must have been very powerful. Also the camera used wasn't the TV camera, that wasn't broadcast footage in the webm.

>>10820493
>"At the time of the mission, the world heard Neil say "That's one small step for man; one giant leap for mankind". As Andrew Chaikin details in A Man on the Moon, after the mission, Neil said that he had intended to say 'one small step for a man' and believed that he had done so. "

https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11.step.html#1092413
Under "109:24:23 Armstrong: That's one small step for (a) man; one giant leap for mankind. (Long Pause)"

>>10820503
Where's the evidence?

>>10820467
>The "fake moon rock" in the Netherlands was due to a misunderstanding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_lunar_sample_displays#History
This is ridiculous and hilarious. Why would they be given a piece of petrified wood in the first place?

>>10820430
>So you trust/agree with them all?
Are you taking issue with a specific point on the website or not? What is your evidence that the landings were faked, preferably a piece of evidence which hasn't been addressed already on the site.
>muh slowed down footage
Utter nonsense. Speeding up footage so that things fall at a similar rate to things on Earth makes every other movement by astronauts and the rover seem ridiculously unnatural and jerky.
https://www.wired.com/2013/03/the-acceleration-of-moon-dust/
>So why was a fake moon rock given to the Netherlands by Buzz Aldrin?
Nice fake "fact" you got there. Said "rock" was given to the PM of Holland before the actual good-will tour had begun, also it was much larger and looked nothing like the actual samples given out during the good will tour. Apparently the PM died and his relatives found the commemorative "rock" and mistook it to be real. Look at pics of actual goodwill samples, they're tiny. Of course I wouldn't expect you to know any of this considering you just saw the headline "fake moon rock Netherlands" and took it at face value without doing any actual research.
>So called "moon rocks" can also be found in Antarctica, so it proves nothing
Actual geologists disagree.
http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/howdoweknow.htm
>There's also no footage of the Astronauts collecting any moon rocks
Link is to an actual picture of an astronaut collecting rock samples:
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2019/03/19/science/13TB-MOONROCKS1/13TB-MOONROCKS1-articleLarge.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp&disable=upscale
>How would they have proven that?
Because they, like several other nations had the capability to track the position of the capsule and its radio broadcasts.
Are these seriously the best arguments you people can come up with after 50 years since A11? A false story about a "fake" moon rock and some irritating contrarianism?

>>10820520
https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2009-09-14-moon-rock_N.htm
>"My guess is that he did not hear well what was said," said the grandson. "He may have formed his own idea about what it was."
It seems like Dree was given something that looked to him like a moon rock while the actual moon rock was being given to the museum and he assumed that what he was given was a moon rock.

>>10820503
>Also the camera used wasn't the TV camera, that wasn't broadcast footage in the webm.
Retard alert. The footage you posted was from one of the 16mm reels. The 16mm footage was ran at low framerate to conserve film like the poster you're replying to already stated. What you posted was a massively sped-up version. The broadcast cameras also ran at low framerates for bandwidth purposes.

>>10820480
>No, but I was educated on many of the engineering principles that Apollo would use. Everything pertaining to Apollo seems sound to me.
Does taking off from the moon to dock with another orbiting spacecraft and flying back to earth (all in a vacuum) seem perfectly plausible based on how everything was engineered?
>Because someone wanted to debunk moon hoaxers and also wanted a website to archive these debunks. According to the website, NASA didn't instruct the site makers to create it. NASA doesn't need help because they're not interested in fighting moon hoaxers. Which makes sense considering that they have been around for decades and never have proven anything.
The creator of the site did work for the Department of Defence, as well as companies that were involved in the NASA program. Why is this person interested in fighting "moon hoaxers"?
>They can note down the coordinates they have found of the spacecraft, or none if the spacecraft didn't even exist, and release the data for everyone to see.
Couldn't they have easily faked that?
>Yes, but space rocks found on Earth will be noticeably different from rocks gathered from space. This is because the heat of reentry partially melts the rocks thus changing their composition slightly. The Apollo rocks show no sign of this.
Maybe because the rocks naturally formed on earth?

>>10820508
What evidence do you want?

>>10820529
>It seems like Dree was given something that looked to him like a moon rock
Yes but WHY? Why would they give him something that looked like a moon rock?

>>10820533
>Does taking off from the moon to dock with another orbiting spacecraft and flying back to earth (all in a vacuum) seem perfectly plausible based on how everything was engineered?
Yes. The fact that it was done in a vacuum actually made certain aspects easier, once relative velocities were matched there was no air resistance or turbulence to throw things off, it'd be like manouevering towards a stationary craft.
>The creator of the site did work for the Department of Defence, as well as companies that were involved in the NASA program. Why is this person interested in fighting "moon hoaxers"?
Ad hominem. You can't fault the material on the website so now you are resorting to trying to discredit its creator/make his motivations appear shady. Shame on you.

>>10820533
>Does taking off from the moon to dock with another orbiting spacecraft and flying back to earth (all in a vacuum) seem perfectly plausible based on how everything was engineered?
Yes.

>The creator of the site did work for the Department of Defence, as well as companies that were involved in the NASA program. Why is this person interested in fighting "moon hoaxers"?
I don't know, and it doesn't matter.

>Couldn't they have easily faked that?
Perhaps, but it won't be hard to have the evidence verified. Evidence that you are lacking.

>Maybe because the rocks naturally formed on earth?
No. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rock#Composition
"Almost all lunar rocks are depleted in volatiles and are completely lacking in hydrated minerals common in Earth rocks."

>>10820543
>Yes but WHY?
As a commemorative gift, retard. The same reason someone might give out a scale model of the space shuttle to commemorate it.

>>10820543
I don't know, but considering that the actual moon rock for the Netherlands has been found and verified suggests that the whole ordeal was just a mistake. The wood wasn't being passed off as a rock until Dree mistook it as one.

>>10820537
Where do I even start?

>Documents pertaining to faking a moon program
>Someone from the inside of the conspiracy speaking out on it
>Recorded positions of the Apollo spacecraft that doesn't match the given mission
>Or if the spacecraft wasn't even sent to the moon, evidence that it wasn't even there such as lack of radio communications coming from the direction of the moon
>Documentation about making convincing models for film
>Blooper reels of accidents made during filming this supposed hoax

NOT
>Idle speculation about a conspiracy
>Claims of shilling
>Misunderstanding basic spaceflight mechanics
>Merely suggesting something is fake without any support

>>10820565
just report moan hoaxers, do not respond please

>>10820526
>Are you taking issue with a specific point on the website or not? What is your evidence that the landings were faked, preferably a piece of evidence which hasn't been addressed already on the site.
Pic related, why is there mould?
>Utter nonsense. Speeding up footage so that things fall at a similar rate to things on Earth makes every other movement by astronauts and the rover seem ridiculously unnatural and jerky.
Huh? The footage can be sped up so that everything is moving together as expected on earth.
>Nice fake "fact" you got there. Said "rock" was given to the PM of Holland before the actual good-will tour had begun, also it was much larger and looked nothing like the actual samples given out during the good will tour. Apparently the PM died and his relatives found the commemorative "rock" and mistook it to be real. Look at pics of actual goodwill samples, they're tiny. Of course I wouldn't expect you to know any of this considering you just saw the headline "fake moon rock Netherlands" and took it at face value without doing any actual research.
Why was this "rock" given in the first place?
>Actual geologists disagree.
>http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/howdoweknow.htm
The author has worked with NASA since '69.
>Link is to an actual picture of an astronaut collecting rock samples:
Looks more like dust to me.
>Because they, like several other nations had the capability to track the position of the capsule and its radio broadcasts.
>Are these seriously the best arguments you people can come up with after 50 years since A11? A false story about a "fake" moon rock and some irritating contrarianism?
If the Soviets tracked them not being on the moon - would you believe the data?

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7794734/

>>10820575
You have a point. I should be following the 2-post rule.

>>10820530
>What you posted was a massively sped-up version
Post the correct version and explain how it is any more real.

>>10820544
>Yes. The fact that it was done in a vacuum actually made certain aspects easier, once relative velocities were matched there was no air resistance or turbulence to throw things off, it'd be like manouevering towards a stationary craft.
What about uneven mass distribution? Or the different amounts of gravity? Or flying in a spacecraft that you've never flown in before?
>>10820544
>Ad hominem. You can't fault the material on the website so now you are resorting to trying to discredit its creator/make his motivations appear shady. Shame on you.
You were the one that brought up the fact NASA didn't instruct the owner to create the site.

>>10820545
>Yes.
Well I'm convinced. Do you think achieving such a feat first time is perfectly plausible too?
>Perhaps, but it won't be hard to have the evidence verified. Evidence that you are lacking.
How would it be verified?
>"Almost all lunar rocks are depleted in volatiles and are completely lacking in hydrated minerals common in Earth rocks."
Or perhaps these rocks are common in Antarctica.

>>10820549
>As a commemorative gift, retard
What a shitty gift! Why not give the real thing for fuck's sake?

>>10820552
>The wood wasn't being passed off as a rock until Dree mistook it as one.
Riiiiight. So what was it being passed off as then?

>>10820565>Documents pertaining to faking a moon program
>Someone from the inside of the conspiracy speaking out on it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Baron
Read his report.
>Blooper reels of accidents made during filming this supposed hoax
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCHG6uJH5L8

>Why yes I have never stepped in a scientific laboratory, ran an experiment, completed a calculus course or solved an integral in my life because all of those things are boring, but let me assure you I absolutely fucking love science and especially space travel and Rick and Morty. How could you tell?

>>10820707
Who are you imitating mockingly, exactly?

>>10820718
I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE!

>>10820718

The average compsci student that posts talks about space travel and has neve published or read a scientific paper in their lives.

>>10820719
I know the meme, you dip, but I assumed that the post was about something in this thread. That was what I was asking about.

>>10820731
If so, then that's why I didn't get it. I've never met anyone like that. Then again, I'm an aerospace major so the only people who like spaceflight I see are the ones who are serious about it.

>>10820738
I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE!

The expected-Google doodle is very nice, and to-the-point. However, it does have a few small technical gaffes, which I'd addressed earlier in the thread.

Specifically, it depicts the frustrum skirt between the second and third stage, as falling off as a separate piece. This is NOT what occurred during the Apollo Saturn V missions. Rather, This conical-shape "aft interstage assembly" fell away still attached to the second stage, as a single piece (see above for the reason why!) Also, it depicts the SLA panels as remaining attached to the S-IVB during transposition and docking, which also didn't occur; upon separation (detonation of small charges), the SLA panels simply floated away, out of the way.

The SLA panel misunderstanding in the animation has a possible origin in Apollo 7, where they thought to try some pseudo-docking exercises without the LM, but which were troubled by the still-attached panels not opening all the way. This plus some similar problems during the Gemini program prompted a minor redesign for the lunar landings/real LM extractions: "just completely blast the panels off/away".

These details are verifiable esp. in the Saturn V manual and in some other official/reputable literature.

>>10820740
Good for you. You do you.

>>10810348

Also: mods, it's time to sticky the thread. Seriously.

>>10820740
now fuck off

>>10820578
>Pic related, why is there mould?
Either you're just willfully ignorant or plain retarded at this point. That's lunar soil, the same lunar soil which has been well documented to stick to things it comes in contact with.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080924191552.htm
>To make matters worse, lunar dust suffers from a terrible case of static cling. UV rays drive electrons out of lunar dust by day, while the solar wind bombards it with electrons by night.
>The footage can be sped up so that everything is moving together as expected on earth.
https://youtu.be/NxZMjpMhwNE
>Why was this "rock" given in the first place?
As a commemorative gift I'd imagine, not that it actually matters.
>The author has worked with NASA since '69.
Not an argument. Refute his points instead of trying to attack his character.
>Looks more like dust to me.
Trying to weasel your way out of admitting you were wrong eh? Take a look at the original-res version of the image hosted here, zoom in on the sample collector and let me know if you still think it's just dust.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/21492151290
>If the Soviets tracked them not being on the moon - would you believe the data?
It would certainly cast doubt upon the credibility of the US. Other nations also had this tracking capability.
>>10820582
>Post the correct version
Not my burden sorry pal. If you want to post footage to show everyone how "fake" the Apollo reels are at least have the decency to find it running at its original framerate.
>>10820586
>What about uneven mass distribution?
Gee I dunno anon, maybe the reaction control system they installed specifically for making small corrections caused by such things?
>Or the different amounts of gravity?
Armstrong trained on a lander which was able to crudely simulate lunar gravity through the use of a constantly firing engine.
>You were the one that brought up
No I wasn't, that was the other anon you're arguing with.

>>10820598
>Why not give the real thing for fuck's sake?
Did you even read my fucking posts? It was given to him BEFORE the good-will tour in which ACTUAL rock samples were handed out. The Netherlands got their ACTUAL sample during this good-will tour.
>>10820609
>what was it being passed off as then?
An artwork/memorabilia to commemorate the Apollo 11 mission.
>>10820612
>Blooper reels of accidents made during filming this supposed hoax
>muh window frame
Why do you keep posting this easily-debunked tripe? You're becoming far too predictable.
https://youtu.be/y5XkLa9RYNk

>>10820235
it's the first 20 minutes

>>10810348
Can someone explain to me how a spacesuit with oxygen tanks wouldn’t immediately explode from the immense vacuum of space?

>>10820758
Cringe

>>10821207
what is a pressure vessel?

>>10821207
It's only one atmosphere of pressure difference. Deep diving suits do a lot more.

>>10821209
Yes. Tanks are pressure vessels.

So are those space suits made of the same immensely thick and strong material that prevents free gas from exploding into space?

Do you have any information on the material, device or math to prove the tank or “pressure vessel” is strong enough to contain free gas in space or are you just playing Jeopardy quizmaster?

>>10821211
it's not even one fucking atmosphere, anon
space suits are typically pressurized to half a bar or so, 8 psi
you can pull 8 psi on a coke bottle with your tongue

13 Minutes to the Moon is a great podcast for anyone interested in Apollo stuff.

>>10821211
As the other anon stated, the pressure differential was only 8 psi, easy enough to contain. I hope you realise that your average aluminium drinks can is pressurised from between 30-40psi.
At an atmospheric pressure of 14.7psi, this means the cans are being subjected to a pressure differential of anywhere between 15.3 to 25.3 psi, which is way more than the Apollo capsule/suits had to deal with. If you really want a shock, look up how high simple bike tires can be pressurised to.

>>10820757
>sticky
Why, so we can attract even more conspiratards? First thread on page 1 + average /sci/lon = shitpost magnet.
At least it would keep them out of /sfg/, I guess.

>no sticky on /his/
>no sticky on /sci/
wtf

Kudos to those arguing against the individuals pushing the moon-landing hoax; however, just as with creationists/Sandy Hook/911/no global warming/vaccinations cause Autism conspiracy nuts, no evidence and factual counters will ever persuade or convince them.

They are proceeding backwards from the idea that the Apollo moon landings are a hoax, and then cherry-pick anything that might prop up their delusion whilst dismissing everything that proves that they are not arguing in good faith.

>>10821857
>no evidence and factual counters will ever persuade or convince them
I know. I challenge people like moon hoaxers to show that their theory is flawed to others. If the hoaxers were left unchallenged, then it would appear to others that their ideas contain merit. By challenging their ideas and pointing out the flaws, it shows that the moon landing conspiracy theory is not a strong theory, hopefully saving someone from being convinced by the intellectually lazy arguments made by moon hoaxers.

>>10821890
>If the hoaxers were left unchallenged, then it would appear to others that their ideas contain merit.
Pretty much this. I began my unfortunate foray into the whole flat-earth/moon hoax nonsense last year when First Man came out. I had just seen it in cinemas and it got me interested in the moon landings again, so I went to YouTube to look up some videos related to it. I watched the post-mission press interview, and scrolled down to the comments. To my dismay and shock it seemed like the majority of the comments were from people who believed it to be a hoax.
I always knew there were a few tinfoilers out there but I didn't realise it had gotten this bad. I was curious as to just how prevalent this mindset had become when I was made aware of the whole flat earth debacle.
I began participating in threads on /x/ and /pol/ trying to argue against what seemed like completely unchallenged nutjobs. As I was only new to this sort of debating and hadn't been in-the-know on my spaceflight history for quite some time, I found some of the more challenging arguments hard to counter. There wasn't really as much resources for quick and easy debunks back then, not that I was aware of anyway. Thankfully I come from an engineering background though so I was quick to learn most of the concepts and was able to come up with some solid rebuttals on my own.
Thankfully now it seems a lot of intelligent people have caught on to this whole shitshow and now there's plenty of easy to find easy to understand explanations and counter arguments to most of the shit flat earthers and moon hoaxers spew out.
I still feel that some arguments don't have an easy to find rebuttal online, so the possibility of me creating my own compilation of some uncommon rebuttals has crossed my mind.
Sorry for the blogpost, I just wanted to share my personal experience with all this shit and why I think countering hoax arguments is important even if you'll never convince the person actually parotting them

once they receive a satisfactory explanation they stop posting. the next day they do it all over again with the exact same subjects they were puzzling over before.

>>10811382

>>10811385
"About goddamn time"

STOP ANON! WHAT'S THAT SOUND?

>>10811385
i'd dab

>>10813276
Holy fuck this is incredible

>>10822192
>moon
>sound
anon...

>>10810348
They hide from us what they found.

>>10822316
DID YOU SAY SOMETHING ANON?

They hide what they found.

>>10822378
Damn, I've heard that the Roman Empire was expansive, but not that expansive. Imagine the trebucket required to send material to the moon.

CBS is streaming their old 1969 broadcast.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBdyzTvA3oA

>>10822022
>I still feel that some arguments don't have an easy to find rebuttal online, so the possibility of me creating my own compilation of some uncommon rebuttals has crossed my mind.

If you do find that you have the time & motivation, that would be extremely useful.

>>10822022
>Sorry for the blogpost, I just wanted to share my personal experience with all this shit and why I think countering hoax arguments is important even if you'll never convince the person actually parotting them

No need to apologise for your posts - dialogue like this is what makes these discussions informative and worthwhile.

Landing soon!
https://apolloinrealtime.org/11/

>>10822544
can't imagine how tense MS must have been

>>10822559
>MS
meant MC

EAGLE: LANDED!

WE DO IT /SCI/

Good job /sci/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2D9bDbbMeY

WE DID IT /SCI/

>when everyone read off GO before landing
kino

For all mankind

>>10810348
You can really tell what a bunch of goobers these guys were and how damned exited about the whole thing they were. Will there ever be so much simultaneous enthusiasm for a scientific event in the future?

>>10822615
That isn't for another 6 hours.

>Mission Control: Be advised, there's lots of smiling faces in this room and all over the world
>Aldrin: Well, there are two of them up here!
Amazing
>>10822619
We can hope bro

>>10822619
Mars will be pretty big.

Conrad had the best first step quote
>"Whoopie! Man, that may have been a small one for Neil, but that's a long one for me."

>>10822615
very good documentary
https://youtu.be/JD2W4CZbH9U

>>10822626
>Collins: and don't forget one in the command modual.
Nobody cares about poor collins.

>>10822639
based

Collins wants to know when its lunchtime

being in the command module while the other 2 are on the surface of the moon was the ultimate cuck

>>10822724
You get your own Guinness record for furthest person from all of humanity.

>>10822724
Micheal Collins was supposed to command Apollo 17 but turned it down

>>10822022

http://www.clavius.org/index.html

>>10822724
You had two days or so to just sit and look out at a view that nobody else in the history of the world had ever had a chance to see, from a vantage point that less than 40 people would see for the next fifty years. He wasn't terribly far from the surface, you know.

>>10822724
not at all

>>10819380
>The moon gets 2 senators and at least one representative.

So you gentlemen really think that 50 years ago the Apollo program landed men on the moon, but that we haven't taken a picture of the landing locations from lunar orbit all these years later?

Wow.

If you think any photograph has ever clearly resolved anything left behind from the Apollo missions please post it here and I will eat my hat.

The Apollo guidance computer memory was hand programed by ladies threading wires. The idea that we would send manned missions with that shit technology and not even be able to photograph it 50 years later is completely absurd. I dare you to try and prove me wrong or explain away this technological discontinuity.

Any takers?

>>10822770
we have taken a photo of the landing locations, we can see their footprints
or at least, the overall tracks of their footprints
turns out that sending spy satellites to the moon is not a high priority

>>10822770
You probably don't even own a hat.

>>10822770
NASA's official answer is likely some bullshit like, "We destroyed the tech and now we don't want to build it again. Sorry :^)"

>>10822770
these could just be native moon worm tracks though

>>10822707
>i wish i was at home bombing charlies
>CAPCOM is too loud
>tfw no landing
>my feet hurt
>i'm hungry

>>10822770
>>10822815
There are better pictures of some of the other landing sites.

>>10822770
https://global.jaxa.jp/press/2008/05/20080520_kaguya_e.html

I hope that the hat is tasty.

>>10822798
>>10822793
No lunar orbiter has taken a picture that resolves anything visibly identifiable as a LEM, a Rover, or anything of the sort. If I am wrong by all means post the image to refute my claim. Seems easy enough. The problem is no such image exists.

Why would we not have telescopes in lunar orbit? Why not a telecommunications network to build up our ability to transmit more data with less latency from rovers?

Why not just keep incrementally building up our understanding of our natural satellite? It would seem you suggest we just wanted to send people on a very risky series of missions and then totally lost interest for half a century.

>>10822827
Do you have the intellectual honesty to admit that is an absolutely shit picture? That is nowhere near good enough. Does that picture make you proud of human achievement?

No. Next.

>>10822855
Let me ask you a better question, with all that it costs to build a telescope and shoot it into space why the fuck would we point it at the moon?

>>10822842
The reason why you posted a link instead of an image is because every single jaxa "image" is trash: keep trying. Please post an image from jaxa that you think resolves an object left behind by the Apollo program.

ill wait.

>>10822855
it's funny, your third paragraph is entirely correct in that it was illogical to just send people there and lose interest for half a century. but people are illogical

the rest of your points are retarded though, undercooked b8 2/10

>>10822855
>"If the landings were real, then later orbiters should have detailed photos of the landing sites!"
>Gets shown photos
>"Those aren't good enough because reasons!"
Wow! Look at those goal posts move! That's all with these moon hoaxers, they'll nit-pick details until the end of time, but will never actually back up their claims.

Riddle me this, if Apollo was indeed a hoax, then why hasn't it been blown out yet? It's been fifty years and yet no major piece of evidence has been found. Meanwhile stuff like MK Ultra and Watergate get leaked. Even the secret Soviet manned lunar mission got exposed. Yet no solid conclusive piece of evidence about this possessed Apollo hoax? Fifty years, and nothing?

>>10822855
>It would seem you suggest we just wanted to send people on a very risky series of missions and then totally lost interest for half a century.
I'm glad you managed to figure it out, now you understand why we're so mad

>>10822855
>that is an absolutely shit picture?
This better?

>>10822860
Oh I dunno, maybe to advance human understanding of the universe?

Lord knows we send them everywhere else. We are allegedly shooting things all over, yet we cant find the money to put a telescope in lunar orbit? Really?

I find this to be unreasonable, and if true a complete failure of priority. We don't even know that much about the chemical composition of the moon. Bezos says there may be methane on the poles. Why don't we check that out? Seems like total incompetence to me...

>>10822863
The reason I posted a link was to have a source for you to look at. You haven't even looked through the site. If you have, then you would have seen about 3/4ths of the way down that the Terrain Camera on the Selene spacecraft has mapped out the Apollo 15 site in great detail. This terrain map matches the images of the Apollo 15 site as the mission was being carried out.

You are either a troll or already convinced that the moon landings were faked. If the second case, then you coming here asking for evidence is dishonest of you.

>>10822882
what are those + shapes in the frame? must be artifacts from your rendering software nice try nasa this time dont pirate blender

>>10822884
>Oh I dunno, maybe to advance human understanding of the universe?
We already went to the surface and got rocks what more could you learn from a telescope. Nothing really changes up there except the occasional meteor.

>>10822886

>>10822885
Please post a jaxa image that resolves a lunar rover, LEM, or anything left behind from apollo. As of yet you have failed to produce such an image.

Also when you look at the image you posted do you really think that looks like a quality image? To me it looks to be of incredibly poor quality. Not to mention it doesn't depict any object left behind by the Apollo missions.

Please try again my friend :)

maybe the real moonlanding was the friends we made along the way

>>10822882
Not a lunar orbiter picture. Next. <3

>>10822910
See>>10822827

>>10822910
>Please post a jaxa image that resolves a lunar rover, LEM, or anything left behind from apollo.
Selene is incapable of taking such an image, however there have been other images of the Apollo sites from orbit, although not from JAXA. Your (assuming you're >>10822770) original demand has been met.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/revisited/index.html

The point of my original JAXA post was that the images of the lunar surface taken by Apollo 15 matches exactly where the mission was said to take place. Strongly suggesting that the mission wasn't faked.

You're just being obtuse. Stop it.

>>10822913
based and friendship pilled
>>10822890
its okay i was meming

>>10822920
You know damn well that is a shitty picture. That is simply not good enough.

Have you ever seen a google earth photo?

Why do you guys think it is reasonable that we haven't sent up a good survey platform to image the lunar surface from orbit?

It shouldn't cost anything near as much as the Apollo program, and it is the next logical step towards human space exploration.

>>10822945
b8

>>10822945
>That is simply not good enough.
Why not? The equipment and disruptions in the lunar soil can clearly be seen.

>Why do you guys think it is reasonable that we haven't sent up a good survey platform to image the lunar surface from orbit?
We have, it's called the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter.

>It shouldn't cost anything near as much as the Apollo program, and it is the next logical step towards human space exploration.
Because there isn't any need to have a higher quality imaging spacecraft around the moon yet.

And your entire fit over imaging the sites from orbit ignores the mountain of evidence towards Apollo being a legitimate program (ex. The Soviets not finding out about it). The lack of an image that can meet your shifting goalposts does in no way falsify Apollo. Maybe you should back up your claims, or go away.

>>10822931
Yea that is because Selene was shit. That is exactly what I'm saying. How does it make any sense that we don't have any good pictures of any of the landing locations a half a century later?

Please explain why we should be expected to believe this discontinuity in technological advancement?

Not to mention that all of the raw telemetry data has been "Lost"... Why should anyone be surprised that I'm skeptical when the Unified S band Telemetry data is all gone.

Completely Absurd.

>>10822964
There is no goalpost shifting: i just want a photo in which you can see an object left on the moon from the apollo program. I dont mean a white spot. I mean being able to resolve an object and see what that object is. Like google earth.

That is the criteria. There is no such photo. If i am wrong then post the photo and i will be proven wrong.

>>10822973
see>>10822827

>>10822965
>How does it make any sense that we don't have any good pictures of any of the landing locations a half a century later?
We have, you're ignoring it because it falsifies your preferred narrative.

>Please explain why we should be expected to believe this discontinuity in technological advancement?
Because space programs around the time of Apollo and long afterwards were primarily government projects. Like all goverment projects, once the political necessity was done (ex. Beating the Soviets to the moon) support got tanked. Instead of pushing the boundaries of spaceflight, NASA shifted it's focus to not being dismantled by a nation that was indifferent to it. And NASA was the most well funded space agency in the world.

>Not to mention that all of the raw telemetry data has been "Lost"...
Accidents happen. But there still are other pieces of evidence and data that are still around. You're choosing to ignore them.

>>10810348
its all lies. just like how a transformer passes electricity without the need for AC / DC pulse . im not even sure what compels any one to lie about such things. i literally can power a transformer constantly with a 9 volt and a 1:1 inductive relay as the transformer with a led on the other side

after i had seen that when doing basic testing for continuity because i dont have 4 probes i kind of think less of every last person in the scientific community. especially in america

Serious question: when undocking from the command module and after landing docking to the command module. Considering how difficult this would be. Why was both done during orbit on the far side of the moon?

>>10822977
There has not been a single good picture posted in this thread.

>>10822827

This picture looks highly suspect to me, but leaving that aside it is not high enough resolution to make out what we are looking at.

Any of you that is actually being intellectually honest will admit that this is essentially a series of white splotches. You can chose to believe that these are reflections off of objects left by the apollo missions. If they had a high definition photo of the type that you can achieve with satellites in earth orbit there would be more certainty of what you are looking at.

It is harder to falsify a high definition image, which is why they would be more valuable to validate a claim.

Again, if someone "loses" the telemetry data to the greatest human achievement of all time you really cant blame people for being suspicious.

That is dog ate my homework level guys.

>>10822998
so that they could EVA on the near side

>>10823004
>It is harder to falsify a high definition image, which is why they would be more valuable to validate a claim.
No. There are other strong ways to validate a claim without needing a high definition photo. In Apollo's case, there's many things which validates it's existence.

>The large amount of detailed technical drawings online for anyone to see
>Including stuff like bolt sizes, technical studies, and quirks in programming, stuff that would be difficult to fake in totality
>The fact that no one inside a supposed conspiracy never blew the whistle, after 50 years there should be tons of them
>The thousands of scientists and engineers who worked on the program
>The large amount of equipment necessary to support the program that are still around
>NASA being very public about the whereabouts of the Apollo spacecraft, other nations were encouraged to track
>Especially the Soviets, who found nothing pertaining to fakery on Apollo

You are simply wrong. We went to the moon, deal with it.

How about you try to back up your claims? I'd love to see the evidence you have.

>>10822732
I'd love to see the evidence you have that i don't have a pet unicorn in my backyard.

When someone makes an extraordinary claim like going to the moon they should be expected to produce evidence to support the claim. A drawing with bolt sizes is not exactly the kind of proof I'm talking about hehe.

I can send you over some technical drawings of my unicorn pen!

:)

>>10823004
>There has not been a single good picture posted in this thread.
See>>10822827

>>10823045
whoops this was meant for

>>10823029

>>10812894
>>10812972
God, these badges are so aesthetic. I'm not looking forward to seeing what the Mars missions will look like, given the current state of NASA.

>>10822745
Thanks, it's a great resource but there are a few hoax claims I've seen before that aren't address on it. Funnily enough Quora seems to have a large amount of well-written rebuttals to various arguments

>>10823191

So how to you think it is reasonable that NASA lost the telemetry data?

Honestly can you see why this is very disturbing to many people? Should it not make someone more skeptical of NASA's claims?

Does this inspire confidence?

around 30 bings until EVA preparation starts

>>10823215
>So how to you think it is reasonable that NASA lost the telemetry data?
The original tapes for Apollo 11 were accidentally written over. The original tapes for the other missions are still around, and copies of Apollo 11 are still around.

>Honestly can you see why this is very disturbing to many people? Should it not make someone more skeptical of NASA's claims?
People have been skeptical of NASA, and still do. But the only people who remain convinced that the moon landings are faked are people who have chosen to ignore the overwhelming evidence that the moon landings happened.

Again, if the the moon landings were indeed faked, then the Soviets would have known about it and exposed it. That didn't happen, therefore the moon landings were legitimate. This is the single largest point for the validity of Apollo, and no moon hoaxer has ever been able to come up with a counter argument that holds up.

>Does this inspire confidence?
Your ramblings does not inspire confidence in the hypothesis that your brain serves a purpose other than cooling your blood.

>>10823215
>So how to you think it is reasonable that NASA lost the telemetry data?
They didn't "lose" the telemetry data though. There's plenty of telemetry data in the mission report, see for yourself.
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11mr.html

>>10823248
Soviets and American were part of the same globalist cabal. It's why they were allies in WWII. Why would they out themselves?

>>10823269
He'll probably say that it doesn't count "because reasons".

>>10823277
>Soviets and American were part of the same globalist cabal.
Prove it.

>It's why they were allies in WWII.
Because they both had the same enemy at the time, Nazi Germany. Did you even read Wikipedia? Or is that too hard for you?

>>10823278
>it's only telemetry when it's stored on a magnetic tape in an obscure format that I'll never be able to access or analyse!

>>10823287
>Website gives files in PDF format
>"it's only telemetry when it's stored on a magnetic tape in an obscure format that I'll never be able to access or analyse!"

>>10823293
I think you misunderstood my post, I was satirising this poster >>10823215 by predicting what his response might be in order to avoid accepting that the telemetry is fine and available.

>>10823328
Oops by bad. Here, have a kitten.

is it possible that at least one of the landings was faked?

>>10823446
No, because NASA was very public about the progress of each mission. One example is that amateur radio astronomers could track the spacecraft via radio communications, and yet none of them came out with evidence of the spacecraft not being where NASA said it was. On top of that, the Soviet Union would be monitoring each Apollo spacecraft, and would quickly know if something is up.

>>10823336
CAT ON THE MOON!

>>10823466
If the average house cat can jump up to 2.76 meters in height, then does that mean that a cat on the moon could jump up to 16.56 meters in height?

>>10823473
IN MY MOON OPINION YES!

>>10823507
>Place cat on moon
>Place cucumber next to cat
>Cat sees the snake-like vegetable
>Cat yeets itself into lunar orbit
>Cat's RW

>>10823446
No but there was a secret Apollo 18 missions that was never publicised. The purpose of it was the built a secret moon base on the far side to produce 100% pure methamphetamines to sell to African warlords.

>inb4 source
It was revealed to me in a dream

>>10823278
>>10823293
>>10823328
>>10823248
>>10823269

Raw telemetry data. Please try and get a link to the full raw telemetry data. I want the unified s band data raw output.

Joke all you want you wont find that. It was your tax dollars, why are you ok with NASA "losing" your data?

First step in one hour.

>>10823462
Ok please cite your source for these ham operators that audited the missions. Do you know what hardware/ antenna they used? do you know the angular resolution of their dish/antenna? Are you just repeating things you have heard without thinking about the physics of radio propagation and detection?

<3

>>10823517
SCIENCE WORKS IN MYSTERIOUS WAYS!

>>10823542
finna start steppin

>>10823564
Can't wait!

real question: why did they had to wait so long to get out after landing?

>>10823574
SILLY ANSWER: THEY ARE THINKING OF WORDS TO SAY!

>>10823574

It makes for better television.

>>10823574

Cool down. the engines run at thousands of degrees, and without an atmosphere, all cooling has to be done by radiation.

Also, there was a lot to do: unpacking suits, checklists, running tests....

>>10823587
oh yea this totally looks like a craft that just touched down with a rocket engine burning at thousands of degrees with a massive thrust...

>>10823587
makes sense, also being the first one i guess they wanted to be extra careful, though i always thought it also had something to do with >>10823584

>>10823598
See >>10823571, and pic related. If you doubt that the LEM could land on the moon, then maybe you should point out the actual technical reasons why instead of saying "it look weird!".

>>10823598

How could there be a picture of it unless they were already outside?

>>10823607
>footprints

>>10823604
Do you see a crater in this picture?
>>10823598

Do you see any problem with that?

I would hate to disturb your faith in nazi rocket scientists though.

>>10823617
>Do you see a crater in this picture?
Why would you expect a crater? The LEM engine was throttled way down just just before touch down, so it wouldn't scar the ground much. However, the image does show disturbed dust patterns below the LEM that aren't seen in other parts of the ground, which suggests that it was caused by the engine.

>I would hate to disturb your faith in nazi rocket scientists though.
Poisoning the well much? Despite the fact that NASA did use Nazi expertise for their rocketry, the vast majority of work done in Apollo was American through and through.

Also, nice deflection from not pointing out any technical issues you see with the LEM, rather you chose to vaguely nitpick at a picture. How lazy are you?

20 minutes

>>10823617
There is a brown-ish patch there. Looks like it might be more solid.

CAN YOU HEAR ME MAJOR ANON?

>>10823638
Roger, you're coming in loud and clear on the high gain.

>>10823627
I think it is absurd to imagine that is a picture of a rocket powered craft having landed there. There is no combustion residue or dislocation of the "lunar surface" from the rocket engine.

Also you do realize von Braun was the chief designer of the Saturn V right?

>>10823647
>There is no combustion residue or dislocation of the "lunar surface" from the rocket engine.
Did you even look at the image in >>10823598? The ground under the LEM is clearly a different color from the rest of the ground.

>Also you do realize von Braun was the chief designer of the Saturn V right?
Yes, but he was just one man in thousands working on Apollo. He was also originally against using hydrolox stages, showing that not everything chosen on Saturn V was made by him.

>>10823647
What's your issue with germans?

BOOT DROP SOON!

>>10823667
I think he has issues that NASA used some Nazis, which I bet that he's going to use it to segway into a conspiracy theory about how all of NASA are Nazis.

TWO MINUTES

COMING DOWN THE LADDER

ONE SMALL POST FOR ANON
ONE GIANT SPAM FOR ANONKIND

ONE SMALL STEP FOR MAN

>>10823677
USA USA USA!

ONE GIANT LEAP FOR MANKIND

Fake

>>10823687
LUNAR CHAMPIONS!

>>10823652
I totally disagree that the ground beneath that rocket engine looks the way it would if a rocket had just landed there. we will have to agree to disagree.

I think the most parsimonious interpretation of the available evidence is that we did not land man on the moon 50 years ago. That would be a spectacular technological discontinuity.

The raw unified s band telemetry was lost or sequestered and never released. That is not something that inspires confidence.

In addition no lunar orbiter has photographed the landing locations to my satisfaction. Maybe the Chinese will be competent enough to put a decent satellite in lunar orbit. NASA seems unable or unwilling to do so.

Also there have been very clear misrepresentations made about the space program that would cause any rational party to be skeptical

>>10823695
moon hoaxers will be disproven when the chinese blow the lower stage of the LEM up with a rocket launcher on television

can you imagine shitposting live while watching a landing on the moon/mars? that would be special

THAT'S ONE SMALL STEP FOR A MAN, ONE GIANT LEAP FOR MANKIND.

>first man on the moon
>last name armstrong
if this was a movie people would walk out

>>10823697
If that day ever comes I will be the first to admit I was wrong. But really it has been half a century... how much longer should i really have to wait to see a fly by of the landing sites?

Does that not give you a strange feeling? We have done so much improving of all relevant technologies yet we cannot reproduce the success of a bygone era? That is highly alarming to me.

Either we have stagnated terribly and squandered a generation and billions of investment or we were lied to. Either case should be very disturbing.

>>10823710
strongest evidence it was staged desu

>>10823710
>zoomers don't know the origin of the homage/tropes they see in modern media
color me shocked
lemme guess Aldrin's nickname came from Toy Story too?

>>10823695
When given rational explanations about what happened in Apollo, you just dismiss them for no reason. When given evidence for Apollo, you move the goal posts. When asked for evidence of fakery, you resort to more speculation.

The landings happened decades ago. It has been a settled issue for decades. Deal with it.

I'm not going to respond to your idle explanations as it's clear that you are intellectually dishonest. Instead, I'll just link to this website that has cataloged some of the strongest evidence and reasoning for Apollo. I encourage you and anyone else who doubts that the moon landings have happened to read through it.

http://www.clavius.org/

>>10823710
What's wrong with Armstrong?

>>10823726
>not thundercock

>>10823698
2024 hopefully. I'm not too optimistic though

>>10823726
is there a more chad surname for the first man on the moon?
imagine if the first man was aldrin. but we got ARM MOTHERFUCKIN STRONG

Is no one going to talk about Xico Xavier's predictions about Aliens contacting us in this very day?

12 minutes until Nixon calls

it was pretty comfy to share this moment with you guys, let's hope we'll be doing it again in just a few years....

>>10823884
hopefully in a couple of years we'll be doing it with the real thing

>>10821194

Dude, you are doing a great job, but I really dont know why you are even bothering to reply to this fuckwit. Moon hoaxers are generally fall into one of several categories: Mentally unstable conspiracy addicts, 14 year old lol trolls, and the fetal alcohol syndrome ferals. Their purpose is not rational discussion but rather just attention seeking. If they can waste your time then they have, in their cretinous minds, won. If they can make you give up because you lose patience with their insane ramblings, lack of education, and their general failure as a human being, then that counts as a win for them too. In fact any engagement with a normal human is a win for them since in mainstream society they are usually ignored and avoided. For good reason, since they are usually some shade of batshit crazy, disruptive or irrelevant.

Shame on the mods for not having made any effort to sticky anything.

>>10823538
Shifting the goalposts because you got BTFO. You asked for telemetry and it was given to you, now you're scrambling for some obscure set of data that you wouldn't even know what to do with anyway if you got it. Any important telemetry data is contained in the mission report, the rest is extraneous.

>>10823584
It's funny how hoaxers always point to this press conference as something damning simply because they're not beaming with smiles, even though the conference took place 3 weeks after they'd landed and spent that time in a quarantine facility isolated from everyone. Vid related is them, smiling in the quarantine facility as they greet the president shortly after the mission.
https://youtu.be/DjXskFHQPp0

The new Apollo 11 documentary has some extremely high quality 70mm footage of the astronauts laughing and smiling post-mission towards the end of the doc.

>>10824045
Thanks, I'm not trying to convince him though, I don't want other people who are perhaps on the fence about the whole thing to see his shitty arguments unchallenged and assume that he's right.

>>10824192
in a perfect world, fence sitters would know better than to just trust whoever speaks loudest
but we live in the real world, so yeah

>>10823520
based Berdyaev

>>10823462
>Soviet Union would be monitoring each Apollo spacecraft
that was a good reason to not make shit up

could it be possible that recent ISS videos were faked? i'm refering to that weird videos with the cable things

>>10819511
>>10819541
>>10819542
Thanks for your replies!

>>10822827
Look at me. I did it, too, guys. :^)

>>10823598
This craft looks like a Do-It-Yourself toy from out of a cereal box and yet we are expected to believe this withstood the unmitigated radiation of the fucking Sun.

Not likely.

>>10824502
>we are expected to believe this withstood the unmitigated radiation of the fucking Sun.
That's exactly WHY it's covered in so much non-structural "tinfoil" you fucking idiot. See >>10823571 if you want to see the LM from a purely structural view.

>>10823549
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryy348A5yh0
dude contacting mir from ground with simple radioamateur equipment.
There's dozen of ham radio enthusiast putting out their contact with ISS. Do your own research

>>10824551
Here is the question since i have to spoon feed it to you:

How would someone "track" a spacecraft on the way to the moon and be able to tell the difference from a transmission that was just coming from earth orbit from one or multiple objects in orbit?

What hardware would be used in this process?

Making contact is not the same thing as knowing where your signal came from with high specificity in angular resolution or distance.

The tracking would in fact require very expensive radar equipment and/or massive dishes, and even then it is hard to resolve distance passively.

>>10824491
Saved. I cant decide if people posting the original of this photo are shills, drooling idiots, or just deluded and intellectually dishonest people.

What we are looking at are very poorly resolved white dots and a grey squiggle. To overlay these features on a telescope image of the moon would be trivial.

Yet we are supposed to : *sharp intake of breath* WOW this is amaaazing and clearly btfo all the "moon hoaxers"

>>10824536
Particles moving at ludicrous speeds are stopped by doubling up on layers of tinfoil? Would it not take miles of lead to stop particles as fast as Solar Radiation?

>>10824614
Not to mention that when charged particles would hit this thin shielding they would actually generate xrays.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung

The geomagnetically confined charged particles of the van allen belts would do this in addition to any solar flares or other sources of high velocity charged particles.

It is total nonsense and only the nontechnical are fooled.

>>10824614
Heating of the capsule in the form of IR radiation is reduced by the thermal shielding. The thermal shielding is not meant to protect against impacts, that's where Whipple shielding and the hull comes in
>Would it not take miles of lead to stop particles as fast as Solar Radiation?
Why do you say "as fast as"? All electromagnetic waves travel at the same speed. What sort of radiation dosage do you think they should've absorbed and why? I'd like figures please, not baseless speculation.

>>10824656
>the van allen belts
Van Allen himself has stated that the VABs posed little risk to the Apollo crew
>However, the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage - a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable.

https://forum.cosmoquest.org/archive/index.php/t-3885.html

>>10824718
You are clearly indoctrinated. I say "as fast as" because particles in space travel faster than 1 m/s, sweetie. I know this is hard to imagine, but high speed objects are difficult to stop.

It takes more than 1 meter of NASA's super secret tough-stuff shielding to stop the kind of debris you'd encounter in space.

>>10824735
>>10824656
>>10824614
>It would require six feet (two meters) of lead in order to shield from the Van Allen belts. The Apollo spacecraft had nowhere near this amount of shielding and so could not have provided the astronauts adequate protection.
The "six feet of lead" statistic appears in many conspiracist charges, but no one has yet owned up to being the definitive source of that figure. In fact, six feet (2 m) of lead would probably shield against a very large atomic explosion, far in excess of the normal radiation encountered in space or in the Van Allen belts.

>While such drastic measures are needed to shield against intense, high-frequency electromagnetic radiation, that is not the nature of the radiation in the Van Allen belts. In fact, because the Van Allen belts are composed of high-energy protons and high-energy electrons, metal shielding is actually counterproductive because of the Bremsstrahlung that would be induced.

Metals can be used to shield against particle radiation, but they are not the ideal substance. Polyethylene is the choice of particle shielding today, and various substances were available to the Apollo engineers to absorb Van Allen radiation. The fibrous insulation between the inner and outer hulls of the command module was likely the most effective form of radiation shielding. When metals must be used in spacecraft (e.g., for structural strength) then a lighter metal such as aluminum is better than heavier metals such as steel or lead. The lower the atomic number, the less Bremsstrahlung.

>The notion that only vast amounts of a very heavy metal could shield against Van Allen belt radiation is a good indicator of how poorly though out the conspiracist radiation case is. What the conspiracists say is the only way of shielding against the Van Allen belt radiation turns out to be the worst way to attempt to do it
http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html

>>10824735
>It takes more than 1 meter of NASA's super secret tough-stuff shielding to stop the kind of debris you'd encounter in space.
Debris? I thought we were talking about solar radiation. What sort of debris are you talking about?
>because particles in space travel faster than 1 m/s
Are you saying they MUST travel faster than 1m/s or that they CAN travel faster than 1m/s (strangely obvious statement, not sure why you'd need to say this)

>>10824742
Utter retard
>>10824740
This looks like a geocities page.

>>10824748
>Utter retard
Not an argument, if you're trying to argue that micrometeorites would've certainly made Apollo impossible, the CM and LM both had micrometeorite shielding.
>>10824748
>This looks like a geocities page.
Not an argument.
>muh clown world
>>>/pol/

>>10824656
Holy shit, you are retarded
in order to generate x-rays through bremsstrahlung radiation, the energy of the charged particle would have to be enormous, that kind of shit doesn't exist in the fucking van allen belt

>>10824784
You are completely wrong about that. The Ions flying around in the van allen belts move incredibly quickly and they have massive energy due to their velocity.

It is like a giant particle accelerator. Maybe you should sit down and read a paper or two instead of spouting off on matters you know nothing about.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6472508/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5070526/

Yeah, I hope you now realize you are the retard. Thanks for playing kiddo.

>>10824868
Where in these two papers does it show that the particles in the outer belt (the one important to Apollo discussion) have enough energy to generate x-rays?

>>10824740
The problem is with the thickness and total mass required. Would you stand in a particle accelerator with three feet of polyethylene and "fibrous insulation" shielding you from the beam? Do you know the velocities of the ions confined in the van allen belts?

We are talking about very high velocity and therefore high energy particles here.

Also what are you going to do about the Bremsstrahlung x rays generated from all the metal on the craft?

>>10824950
>Would you stand in a particle accelerator with three feet of polyethylene and "fibrous insulation" shielding you from the beam?
Yes
Do you know the velocities of the ions confined in the van allen belts?
We're discussing the outer belt. Show that the exposure would've been lethal to the astronauts using actual figures or shut up.
>Also what are you going to do about the Bremsstrahlung x rays generated from all the metal on the craft?
See >>10824918

Armstrong and Aldrin getting low on beer supply.

Blast off to meet Columbia in a little over an hour.

WAIT TAKE ME WITH YOU!

THEY ARE BACK TOGETHER!

PLANET EARTH IS BLUE AND THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO!