Am 16.10.2011 18:47, schrieb RD Sandman:
Thomas wrote in
:

...

This is the kind of stupidity that is so typical of the conspiracy
nuts


(Actually its not my business and I'm not a 'conspiracy nut'. )
...
Don't know, how to put all these pieces together and it's actually not
my business, but I suggest you Americans try to do that.

TH


Several here have tried. You aren't unique no matter what your mum told
you. So far, none of their theories have held any more water than yours
have.


I don't think so, because the people in the world act in a different
manners than you think. Knowledge follow an exponential curve. This
means, a certain idea is passed to - say - two (different) friends per
day - and so forth.
The idea spreads relatively slowly. But the last half of the Earth is
covered in a day. (Not quite, but as simplification)

So certain ideas are not visible for a very long time, but this doesn't
mean, they are not there. Only they are not visible.

But if the ideas have their own value and are is some respect 'better'
(as explanation), than they sooner or later outrun the competitors.

In the subjects you call 'conspiracies', there are several ideas, that
seem to be more 'true' (hence: 'truthers'), what gives these ideas
advantages over official explanations.

The 'truthers' will inevitably outrun official fairy tails, because
truth has advantages in explaining things.


TH

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 15.10.2011 22:46, schrieb Scout:


"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 15.10.2011 02:05, schrieb Scout:


"RD Sandman" wrote in message
...
"Scout" wrote in
:



"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 14.10.2011 18:37, schrieb Thomas Heger:
Am 14.10.2011 02:22, schrieb RHF:
On Oct 13, 11:48 am, Thomas wrote:
Am 13.10.2011 06:34, schrieb John Smith: On 10/12/2011 2:11 PM,
RHF wrote:
On Oct 12, 11:43 am, Thomas wrote:
Am 11.10.2011 18:50, schrieb SaPeIsMa:

--
..



Now please - think about the Apollo mission and how the Americans
got ripped off...

TH

TH, please tell us all just how the Apollo {Manned}
Mission to the Moon and Back was a 'rip-off' . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program

one does wonder . . . ~ RHF

Usually I don't maintain threads about guns. I have more interest
in
the Apollo program and did my personal kind of 'research' on that
subject. (Mainly reading articles, following links on the internet,
watching films on YouTube and so forth).

Than I discuss my findings in forums like this one.

About the moon landing I have found a lot of inconsistencies within
the pictures taken.
My conclusion is, that these pictures were faked - not even
particularly sophisticated.


Since You most certainly don't trust me, I give you an example.
(Only
one)

Look at this picture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ap...unar_orbit.jpg

It shows the lunar orbiter and the moon.
Since there is no other choice, the photo was obviously taken from
the landing module 'Eagle'.

But the term 'orbiter' refers to the orbit, this vehicle keeps,
while
the lander lands.
Landing zone is usually below the orbit, hence the lander cannot
take
photos from the orbiter with the moon in the back.

Certainly it can. Depending on the orbits used, the lander can easily
"descend" upon the orbiter. Indeed it is typical after undocking to
go
to a slightly higher orbit to allow the orbiting craft/station to
pass
under you (lower orbit being faster) until it clears the area, and
then when you come up on the point to begin your de-orbit burn the
area is clear, as no matter what you do at that point the other craft
is only going to move further away from you. If you tried to go a
lower orbit move ahead of the orbiting craft and then try to de-orbit
the orbiting craft would be catching up to you as you slowed and if
you accidently "ballooned up" a bit because your angle was slightly
off....you could possibly even run into each other. Not a good thing.
Nor do you want to wait forever for the gap to open up enough as your
time in space is strictly limited. Safer to simply move a bit higher,
let it pass under you and then there is no possibility of that
occurring. And gee, while you're sitting there you snap a picture out
the window and *poof* the planet/moon is in the background. SOB.

So if this is your BEST evidence, then this is really going to blow
your socks off.

"The International Space Station photographed following separation
from the Space Shuttle Endeavour in 2001."

http://news.medinfo.ufl.edu/articles...scovery-prompt

s-development-of-space-radiation-sensors/

Damn, is that the EARTH in the background?

"Last August, the Space Shuttle Endeavour crew captured this shot of
the International Space Station (ISS) against the backdrop of Planet
Earth. "

http://www.astronomy-pictures.net/na..._pictures.html

Damn, there it is again.

"International Space Station (ISS), March 2011, taken from the Space
Shuttle Discovery after undocking at the end of its mission to the
ISS"

http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/395325/enlarge

And again. Damn, one might even see this as a theme.

"The international space station, shown here in a photo taken from
the
shuttle Discovery in June"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26441443/

So tell me does this mean the International Space Station is a fraud,
or shall we simply consider the possibility that what you see as
photographic flaws are really just a symptom of your ignorance of the
mechanics of space flight?



Scout....if he lived in the US he would be a 911 truther. He is purely
looking for some conspiracy to believe in.

Actually you can be a 'truther' and live outside the USA.

I did some sort of 'research' on 9-11, too. Actually I have an own
'theory', that circles around flight 93.
There seems to be a plot. This is the picture - or story- that was
intended, but not achieved. Actually Mr.Bush messed it up (in my
assumption).

It goes like this:
I call it a 'dance of planes and falling skyscrapers'.
The original plot was, that north tower gets hit, south tower gets
hit, pentagon gets hit.
South tower falls down, flight 93 hits building 7, north tower falls
down, building 7 falls down. (South tower had to fall first, because
building 7 is behind it).

Instead the flight was delayed and Mr. President so perplexed, that he
had to think about a solution very hard (and for several minutes).
Than he gave order to shoot down the plane, what was promptly done.
Flight 93 was apparently approaching Indean Lake Airpark, but didn't.
make it there and fell in parts into the Indean Lake.
Later on the WTC 7 fell without a hit.

yawn

And naturally you have some evidence to support this supposition?

You can also explain the bulging walls and other sides of structural
collapse noted prior to the building's collapse?

Actually I don't like the term 'truther'. And I don't like the term
'conspiracy theory', but these phrases are commonly used.

I think, if the government does does something illegal, than this
isn't a conspiracy. Its just illegal.


That and showing he has absolutely NO capacity for research,
investigation or critical thought.


I bet I can give him something that will really blow his mind.

In orbit you go faster to slow down, and slow down to go faster.

The decline from orbit is a difficult subject, too. Imagine a space
capsule in Moon orbit. There is no air. To land and to stop the craft
in horizontal movement, you need to fire the engine in reverse thrust
(against flight direction). This is not seen on any of the films or
pictures.

Well, let's see. The people in the lander are going to be strapped down
and all they could take a picture of in any event would be a view out
the front of the lander.

The orbiter meanwhile is now ahead of the lander and the moment you
fired the engines on the lander would rapidly move away. Short of a
really high power telephoto, you couldn't take a meaningful picture of
the lander from the orbiter during the de-orbit burn, nor any particular
reason to do so. After all I doubt some moron may years in the future
would contend the whole thing was faked simply because they didn't take
a picture just for him.

And it is - of course - difficult and fuel consuming.

Yep, which is why weight was such an issue.

The opposite is even more difficult and that is to restart and making
the rendezvous with the orbiter.

No more than any of the other times that spacecraft have met up in
space, and from the moon it would actually be easier since you would
have no air currents to throw you off your course during launch.

This is next to impossible, because there is no assistance from the
ground, helping to correct the flight path (nobody there, on moon
surface).

Don't need it. One craft knows exactly where they are, the other knows
where they are, the rest is just math.


Well, I would agree to 'just math and knowing where things are'.

But that 'just math' is quite challenging, if you have only a handcranked
'computer' with a few k Ram.

And clearly up to the job.

And knowing where everything is is difficult, too. Today they have GPS,
that would help a lot - if installed at the moon.

But without radar and satellite navigation things are VERY difficult.

Not really. Apollo 13 proved that all they needed was one fixed point in
space...and the Earth itself provided that.

Sorry, but the bulk of the work was predone, the only thing they had to deal
with was the final adjustments once they got within visual range.


And completely impossible is, to store the needed fuel in a single
craft. (No gas station there, neither).

Actually with the small gravity well of the moon and no atmosphere it's
quite possible.

See the gravity well of the Earth is some 22 TIMES greater than is the
gravity well of the moon.

Here's a nice video with graphics to explain this to you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBQHtF3WhMw

Further the lander doesn't even have to climb all the way out of that
well. It only has to reach a very low orbit to meet up with the orbiter
which then provides the rest of the thrust needed to return to Earth.

Heck, the orbiter's orbit was generally so low that it would have been
within the atmosphere around the Earth. But since the moon has no
atmosphere you could orbit at almost any height, as shown by the recent
orbits just 13 miles up (ie 69,000 feet) below the service ceiling of
many military aircraft.

So combine a shallow gravity well, with low orbit and what do you have?

Answer - you need very little delta V to land or launch for said orbit
around a body without an atmosphere.

Once again, I will simply note that all you are showing is your
ignorance of the mechanics of space flight, not any flaws in what NASA
did, or didn't do.

Actually the gravity on Moon is very low. Agreed..

Not very low, just low. However, the gravity well is MUCH lower than the
Earth's.


But you make the same mistake as the NASA guys. That is messing up
'inertia' and 'weight'.

Who brought up either term?

oh, that's right, we're into you inventing strawmen.


In Germany we had pounds before, but now use the SI-system of units. With
this it is more easy to see: Weight is measured in Newton (in lbs. in the
US) and mass in kilograms (in lbs. in the US).

To accelerate a mass to a certain speed, the needed energy does not depend
on weight, but on mass and the needed velocity. That velocity is orbital
speed for the moon's gravitational field.

yawn

I haven't said anything else. Are you trying to talk so much that people
will miss when you don't refute the fact pointed out to you?


For Earth orbit you need much faster flight than you would need to stay in
orbit around the moon, but nevertheless it is quite fast. On Earth it took
a Saturn V rocket, to lift the craft into orbit. On the Moon it would take
less fuel, but way more, than the few gallons, they had in the lander.

Ok, let's see your math.

I mean if you know they needed more, then clearly you have calculated all
this out and know exactly how much they would need and whether they could
have that much on the lander.

So let's see your work.

---- Insert mathematical proof here.

Here I will even aid you with the specifications for the mass, amount of
fuel, type of fuel, specific impulse, thrust provided, available delta-V,
and so on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_...Specifications

Thomas Heger wrote in news:9g1qeuFioqU1
@mid.individual.net:

Am 16.10.2011 18:47, schrieb RD Sandman:
Thomas wrote in
:

..

This is the kind of stupidity that is so typical of the conspiracy
nuts


(Actually its not my business and I'm not a 'conspiracy nut'. )
..
Don't know, how to put all these pieces together and it's actually
not
my business, but I suggest you Americans try to do that.

TH


Several here have tried. You aren't unique no matter what your mum
told
you. So far, none of their theories have held any more water than
yours
have.


I don't think so, because the people in the world act in a different
manners than you think.

Perhaps, perhaps not. You don't know what I think.

Knowledge follow an exponential curve. This
means, a certain idea is passed to - say - two (different) friends per
day - and so forth.
The idea spreads relatively slowly. But the last half of the Earth is
covered in a day. (Not quite, but as simplification)

My point was that your "truther" ideas are not unique to you, and in most
cases, didn't even start with you.

So certain ideas are not visible for a very long time, but this doesn't
mean, they are not there. Only they are not visible.

No one has claimed any different.

But if the ideas have their own value and are is some respect 'better'
(as explanation), than they sooner or later outrun the competitors.

Yes, but so far, the facts don't fit the conspiracy theories.

In the subjects you call 'conspiracies', there are several ideas, that
seem to be more 'true' (hence: 'truthers'), what gives these ideas
advantages over official explanations.

Only in the minds of those who have trouble handling the truth.

The 'truthers' will inevitably outrun official fairy tails, because
truth has advantages in explaining things.

Well, that happens (and it hasn't yet) it will be interesting....but so
far the truth remains and conspiracy theories are like weeds. If you
don't like the one you just saw, wait a bit and another will show up.


--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)

Witnessing Republicans and Democrats bickering over
the National Debt is like watching two drunks argue
over a bar bill on the Titanic.....

Thomas Heger wrote in news:9g1pg5FcguU1
@mid.individual.net:


Well, I would agree to 'just math and knowing where things are'.

But that 'just math' is quite challenging, if you have only a
handcranked 'computer' with a few k Ram.

And knowing where everything is is difficult, too. Today they have GPS,
that would help a lot - if installed at the moon.

But without radar and satellite navigation things are VERY di

Are you a complete and utter moron?

How do you think people navigated across open oceans or seas before all
that crap was invented?

How do you think navigators, navigated?

You will deny every aspect of reality to feed your delusions.

--
Words of wisdom

What does not kill you... probably didn't cause enough tissue damage.

Am 17.10.2011 07:01, schrieb Scout:


...

For Earth orbit you need much faster flight than you would need to
stay in orbit around the moon, but nevertheless it is quite fast. On
Earth it took a Saturn V rocket, to lift the craft into orbit. On the
Moon it would take less fuel, but way more, than the few gallons, they
had in the lander.

Ok, let's see your math.

I mean if you know they needed more, then clearly you have calculated
all this out and know exactly how much they would need and whether they
could have that much on the lander.

So let's see your work.

---- Insert mathematical proof here.

Here I will even aid you with the specifications for the mass, amount of
fuel, type of fuel, specific impulse, thrust provided, available
delta-V, and so on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_...Specifications


Well, I'm a little too lazy, but a rough calculation is possible:

There is the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation
velocity_final=v_exhaust* ln(mass_start/mass_finish)

V_end= 2200 m/s * ln (4547 kg/(4547-2353) kg)

that is :
v_end approx. 1603 m/s

this is an estimated calculation without gravity.

the final velocity is reduced by
delta v = g_moon * (time of engine running)

Don't know that number (time_ engine)

Maybe 100 seconds (???)

makes:
delta v = 1.6 m/s²*100 s=160 m/s

What gives a rough estimate for the final velocity of the landers
ascending stage of
v_end = 1440 m/s.

Now the orbital velocity had to be compared. But I don't have the data
and actually I'm too lazy to find them out. But usual orbits should be a
little less than escape velocity, what is
v_orbit_escape = 2380 m/s.

V_end is a rough estimate ('thumb times pi'). For better calculations
someone with more experience in rocket science is needed.

I cannot even tell you, if the ascent stage is fast enough or not. But
my intuition tells me, it is not.


Greetings

Thomas

"Gray Guest" wrote in message
.100...
Thomas Heger wrote in news:9g1pg5FcguU1
@mid.individual.net:


Well, I would agree to 'just math and knowing where things are'.

But that 'just math' is quite challenging, if you have only a
handcranked 'computer' with a few k Ram.

And knowing where everything is is difficult, too. Today they have GPS,
that would help a lot - if installed at the moon.

But without radar and satellite navigation things are VERY di

Are you a complete and utter moron?

How do you think people navigated across open oceans or seas before all
that crap was invented?

How do you think navigators, navigated?

You will deny every aspect of reality to feed your delusions.


I'll also point out that in the 60s there were no handheld calculators that
did various algebraic and trigonometrical functions.
You had slide rules for 3 meaningful digits and log tables for more
meaningful digits.
And computers were mainframes that had very few real-time applications where
you could dynamically change the data set on the fly, and immediately
recalculate. Not to mention that their processing speed was slower than a
cheap $5 calculator you pick up at Walgreens or Wal-Mart.

"SaPeIsMa" wrote in message
.. .
And computers were mainframes that had very few real-time applications
where you could dynamically change the data set on the fly, and
immediately recalculate. Not to mention that their processing speed was
slower than a cheap $5 calculator you pick up at Walgreens or Wal-Mart.

I remember when the mainframe group where I worked were jealous that they
had to run a compile overnight, but the "PC" group did ours with a simple
press of the "F5" key. :-)

On Oct 17, 4:08*pm, "SaPeIsMa" wrote:
"Gray Guest" wrote in message

.100...









Thomas Heger wrote in news:9g1pg5FcguU1
@mid.individual.net:

Well, I would agree to 'just math and knowing where things are'.

But that 'just math' is quite challenging, if you have only a
handcranked 'computer' with a few k Ram.

And knowing where everything is is difficult, too. Today they have GPS,
that would help a lot - if installed at the moon.

But without radar and satellite navigation things are VERY di

Are you a complete and utter moron?

How do you think people navigated across open oceans or seas before all
that crap was invented?

How do you think navigators, navigated?

You will deny every aspect of reality to feed your delusions.

I'll also point out that in the 60s there were no handheld calculators that
did various algebraic and trigonometrical functions.
You had slide rules for 3 meaningful digits and log tables for more
meaningful digits.
And computers were mainframes that had very few real-time applications where
you could dynamically change the data set on the fly, and immediately
recalculate. Not to mention that their processing speed was slower than a
cheap $5 calculator you pick up at Walgreens or Wal-Mart.

Dollar-Tree Store has 8-Digit Calculators
with Memory Recall and Square Root for...
-you-got-it-!-just-a-buck- One Dollar [$1]

"Tom S." wrote in message
...
"SaPeIsMa" wrote in message
.. .
And computers were mainframes that had very few real-time applications
where you could dynamically change the data set on the fly, and
immediately recalculate. Not to mention that their processing speed was
slower than a cheap $5 calculator you pick up at Walgreens or Wal-Mart.

I remember when the mainframe group where I worked were jealous that they
had to run a compile overnight, but the "PC" group did ours with a simple
press of the "F5" key. :-)


That was also true of the "mini" computers like the PDP series.
Although many ran compiled software like COBOL and FORTRAN, some ran
interpreted software, like BASIC, APL, etc
In many cases, there were libraries of compiled routines that could be
called, and the interpreted portions were simple the main logic like making
a series of calls to compiled routines.
I also remember the territorial fights between the mainframe, mini, and
desktop crowds..
I spent a lot of time as a consultant mediating separation of tasks and
responsibilities to optimize operations.

"RHF" wrote in message
...
On Oct 17, 4:08 pm, "SaPeIsMa" wrote:
"Gray Guest" wrote in message

.100...









Thomas Heger wrote in news:9g1pg5FcguU1
@mid.individual.net:

Well, I would agree to 'just math and knowing where things are'.

But that 'just math' is quite challenging, if you have only a
handcranked 'computer' with a few k Ram.

And knowing where everything is is difficult, too. Today they have
GPS,
that would help a lot - if installed at the moon.

But without radar and satellite navigation things are VERY di

Are you a complete and utter moron?

How do you think people navigated across open oceans or seas before all
that crap was invented?

How do you think navigators, navigated?

You will deny every aspect of reality to feed your delusions.

I'll also point out that in the 60s there were no handheld calculators
that
did various algebraic and trigonometrical functions.
You had slide rules for 3 meaningful digits and log tables for more
meaningful digits.
And computers were mainframes that had very few real-time applications
where
you could dynamically change the data set on the fly, and immediately
recalculate. Not to mention that their processing speed was slower than a
cheap $5 calculator you pick up at Walgreens or Wal-Mart.

Dollar-Tree Store has 8-Digit Calculators
with Memory Recall and Square Root for...
-you-got-it-!-just-a-buck- One Dollar [$1]
.

I was in Engineering School in the Early seventies.
My Texas Instrument calculator cost me over $1000 at about 40% MSRPl because
I was a "loss leader" sale.
I was not allowed to use during my exams, because it would have been unfair
to those who couldn't afford buying one. Slide rules or Log Tables only.