ApolloHoax.net

Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: apollo16uvc on July 19, 2019, 05:39:25 PM

Title: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
Post by: apollo16uvc on July 19, 2019, 05:39:25 PM
Conspiracy website Fakeologist is currently hosting a livestream with fellow dutchman Gaia.
He will be talking about his years of research, and making points nobody else made before.

http://cp.usa6.fastcast4u.com:2199/start/abirat01/

It will be included in their website later.
Title: Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
Post by: apollo16uvc on July 19, 2019, 05:45:51 PM
Or not, that may actually be later tonight or tomorrow. Either way will post a link to the full audio stream later.
Title: Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
Post by: Obviousman on July 19, 2019, 08:47:00 PM
Will it be worth listening to? Whenever people claim "...evidence never seen before..." I have normally found that to mean 'things I believe and that I ignore all evidence to the contrary'.
Title: Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
Post by: ChrLz on July 19, 2019, 09:25:08 PM
OP, as you seem to be interested, how's about you take a bullet for the team and come back when they actually post anything 'new'..?

Because I gotta be honest, it seems to me that the only few deniers left are either trolls, moneymakers, or the ludicrously uneducated (or uncaring either way).  I don't really like giving anything, including time or hits, to any folks in any of those categories.

Call me lazy, I'll wear it.  Laziness is just an advanced form of efficiency...
Title: Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
Post by: Obviousman on July 19, 2019, 10:51:47 PM
Don't bother. For a start they have no idea what they are doing streaming wise (the guest can't see what they are talking about, etc) and what I have heard so far is the same old stuff: LRV dust trails, astronauts movements, etc.

IMHO - WOFTAM.
Title: Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
Post by: apollo16uvc on July 20, 2019, 02:37:12 AM
I am not sure if he made these claims in the livestream, but we talked about them a day before:

Gaia is a geologist, and he finds it strange that the geological maps of landing sites made prior to the landing were not updated after the mission concluded.

Gaia is the first person in history to have made a complete 3D geological map of the moon, if they really went this would have been done already.

The photos are too sharp to have been taken while bunnyhopping around, no viewfinder, and attached to their suit.

Not deciding to have the first man on the moon a geologist was a crazy and dangerous decision, it makes no sense.

How were the astronauts allowed to move as they did? The moon is a completely unknown environment, they should have described every single movement in detail. You don't just 'turn around' to make a camera panorama in such a dangerous environment.

Only few photos were released to the press in the 70's, most of the photos were made on a later date in the 90's with digital camera's

The audio, video and photos were all taken on different dates.
Title: Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
Post by: Peter B on July 20, 2019, 03:11:42 AM
I am not sure if he made these claims in the livestream, but we talked about them a day before:

Gaia is a geologist, and he finds it strange that the geological maps of landing sites made prior to the landing were not updated after the mission concluded.

Gaia is the first person in history to have made a complete 3D geological map of the moon, if they really went this would have been done already.

The photos are too sharp to have been taken while bunnyhopping around, no viewfinder, and attached to their suit.

Not deciding to have the first man on the moon a geologist was a crazy and dangerous decision, it makes no sense.

How were the astronauts allowed to move as they did? The moon is a completely unknown environment, they should have described every single movement in detail. You don't just 'turn around' to make a camera panorama in such a dangerous environment.

Rather than having us answer these questions now, would you like to invite Fakeologist and Gaia here so we can discuss their points with them?
Title: Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
Post by: Jason Thompson on July 20, 2019, 04:01:07 AM
I am not sure if he made these claims in the livestream, but we talked about them a day before:

Gaia is a geologist, and he finds it strange that the geological maps of landing sites made prior to the landing were not updated after the mission concluded.

Who says they weren't, and what updates does he expect to see and when?

Quote
Gaia is the first person in history to have made a complete 3D geological map of the moon

Proof of that claim is required.

Quote
if they really went this would have been done already.

How would the landings at six sites on one side of the Moon aid in construction of a complete gelogical map of the Moon, rather than, say, detailed information from a number of orbiting probes in the years that followed? That's like asking me to make a complete geological map of Earth based on rocks I picked up in Cornwall, Chile, China, New Zealand, Ethiopia and Antarctica. Does he really think that would be enough information? For one thing the rock I picked up in Cornwall will differ from rocks picked up in Dover or Aberdeen, and that's only a few hundred miles of separation.

Quote
The photos are too sharp to have been taken while bunnyhopping around, no viewfinder, and attached to their suit.

Boring old debunked claim. Why does he think the photos were taken while they were hopping around?
 
Quote
Not deciding to have the first man on the moon a geologist was a crazy and dangerous decision, it makes no sense.

If I ran the zoo, blah, blah, blah... Deciding to have the first man on the Moon a geologist rather than a test pilot for a new spacecraft would be the dangerous decision.

Quote
How were the astronauts allowed to move as they did? The moon is a completely unknown environment, they should have described every single movement in detail. You don't just 'turn around' to make a camera panorama in such a dangerous environment.

The usual 'they were a whisker from disatser at every second' argument. Come on, the designers and engineers knew the environment and buit the suits to cope with it.

Quote
Only few photos were released to the press in the 70's, most of the photos were made on a later date in the 90's with digital camera's

Same old same old. Already disproven.

Quote
The audio, video and photos were all taken on different dates.

Seriously? You can literally see the astronauts taking the pictures and hear them describing it. The video, audio and photos match up perfectly. Where is his evidence for this claim?

Usual disappointing crap we've all heard countless times before, basically.
Title: Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
Post by: onebigmonkey on July 20, 2019, 04:02:13 AM
I am not sure if he made these claims in the livestream, but we talked about them a day before:

Gaia is a geologist, and he finds it strange that the geological maps of landing sites made prior to the landing were not updated after the mission concluded.

If I ran the zoo part 1. Claiming to be a geologist and being one are two different things. If he is one he should know better. You don't get to completely redraw a geological map of an entire sphere based on a sample size of 6.

Other people have tried to update the maps based on the lunar samples, eg

https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/pgm2018/pdf/7013.pdf

and local geology was discussed in great detail, eg

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17profpaper.htm

Have a lecture on lunar geology:



Quote
Gaia is the first person in history to have made a complete 3D geological map of the moon, if they really went this would have been done already.

If I ran the zoo part 2. What data did he use? Where did he get it from? Does any of that data contradict Apollo?  When did he do it?

https://scitechdaily.com/moon-data-allows-creation-of-detailed-lunar-3-d-map/

Define '3D'. The Apollo seismic experiments allowed the internal structure of the moon to be defined when it was previously unknown. That's pretty 3D.

Quote
The photos are too sharp to have been taken while bunnyhopping around, no viewfinder, and attached to their suit.

Argument from incredulity part 1, completely ignoring the many badly framed and out of focus images. You don't need a viewfinder to take sharp images, you just need to keep still.

Quote
Not deciding to have the first man on the moon a geologist was a crazy and dangerous decision, it makes no sense.

If I ran the zoo part 3. It makes perfect sense to have the first people on the moon to be trained and experienced pilots who can be trained on how to take samples. When you've done that and worked out how to do it repeatedly, then send a geologist.

Quote
How were the astronauts allowed to move as they did? The moon is a completely unknown environment, they should have described every single movement in detail.

They did. Watch the Apollo 11 EVA with Aldrin performing and describing different ways of getting around.

Quote
You don't just 'turn around' to make a camera panorama in such a dangerous environment.

Argument from incredulity part 2.

Quote
Only few photos were released to the press in the 70's, most of the photos were made on a later date in the 90's with digital camera's

Not true. Not true at all.

Quote
The audio, video and photos were all taken on different dates.

All the audio, video and photos were taken during the missions.
Title: Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
Post by: gillianren on July 20, 2019, 11:20:32 AM
What's dangerous about not bringing a geologist?
Title: Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
Post by: JayUtah on July 20, 2019, 11:31:10 AM
Gaia is the first person in history to have made a complete 3D geological map of the moon, if they really went this would have been done already.

It was done, for the landing sites.  All that was available was analog optical densitometry, but it was done.

Quote
The photos are too sharp to have been taken while bunnyhopping around, no viewfinder, and attached to their suit.

As if a normal human doesn't intuitively know to stop moving while taking a picture.  "Attached to suit" and "no viewfinder" have nothing to do with sharpness.  The cameras were attached to the RCU, which in turn was hung from the PLSS straps.  There was actually quite a lot of freedom of movement to point the camera finely.

Quote
Not deciding to have the first man on the moon a geologist was a crazy and dangerous decision, it makes no sense.

Wow, this guy has an ego the size of Olympus Mons.
Title: Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
Post by: twik on July 22, 2019, 09:46:52 AM
Not deciding to have the first man on the moon a geologist was a crazy and dangerous decision, it makes no sense.

How were the astronauts allowed to move as they did? The moon is a completely unknown environment, they should have described every single movement in detail. You don't just 'turn around' to make a camera panorama in such a dangerous environment.


I'd love to know what a geologist would have done differently than Armstrong.

And how would "describing every single movement in detail" made things safer?

Typical narcissistic conspiracist.
Title: Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
Post by: JayUtah on July 22, 2019, 01:59:37 PM
I'd love to know what a geologist would have done differently than Armstrong.

Crash the LM.

Quote
And how would "describing every single movement in detail" made things safer?

...or cure the notion that the Moon is "completely unknown."  It's not unknown.  We know, for example, that there's a vacuum.  And the vacuum that's a meter off the surface of the Moon is the same vacuum that's 200 km above the Earth's surface, in which several astronauts by that time had demonstrated the ability to work and for their suits to protect them.  No need to describe in detail verbally what vacuum is like on the lunar surface.  Ditto thermal issues, radiation issues, and so forth.  All those were knowns by the time Apollo 11 flew.  All you can really cite is diminished gravity.  From the engineering standpoint, that's the only thing it's truly hard to simulate exactly in a different environment.  And lo and behold, the crew described in detail what it was like to move in diminished gravity with the full EMU.  The full splendor of the problem wasn't entirely known, but by no means was it entirely unknown.  And let's not forget that Armstrong was initially tethered to the LM, presumably so he could be hauled up in an emergency.  He untethered once it became apparent that mobility wasn't going to present unexpected difficulty.

This is how engineers break down a complex problem like safe mobility on the Moon.  Comments like those from Gaia illustrate why he shouldn't be charged with solving those kinds of problems.

Quote
Typical narcissistic conspiracist.

I'm glad someone broached that.  I'm often sympathetic to "If I Ran the Zoo" arguments.  I reject them, of course, as evidence of a hoax.  But probative value aside, many of them are not especially ill-intentioned, and a few are defensibly reasoned from from a layman's point of view.  Which is to say they aren't always absurdly unreasonable, from a certain point of view.  Keep in mind that television on the lunar surface for Apollo 11 wasn't always a given, for example.  A lot of people at NASA were legitimately trying to run the zoo differently, and for good reasons.  And fairings over the SM RCS isn't an unreasonable expectation, for another example, if you don't know all the engineering details.  In a less contentious context you'd want to reward people for thinking through problems and asking questions, even if it's from an incomplete picture of the facts.  Sadly when they deploy it as a pro-hoax argument in the forum, it has to be rebutted.  And often that takes the form of inviting them to examine their assumptions, which in turn might mean facing up to not being as smart as they thought they were.  That's sometimes hard even for honest people.

The most difficult is when the suggestion is nominally reasonable.  "They should have..."  and yes, doing that was possible -- but it just didn't happen.  They could have, but they just didn't.  Or they didn't have to, but they did anyway.  The logical error here is the non sequitur to the notion of a hoax.  But when the other arguments and rebuttals take the form of, "They should have _____," followed by, "No, here's why it doesn't make sense to _____," then a new rebuttal of the form ,"Okay, they could have _____ but didn't; so what?" seems anticlimactic and unpersuasive.

Then at the other end of the spectrum are the narcissists.  With or without appropriate knowledge and expertise, they are simply unwilling to even consider the notion that what they think ought to have happened or not happened may not be the way it was.  Or the way it should have been.  Or even a particularly smart or possible way to do ti.  It's certainly annoying when they entrench themselves in their expectations.  But it's downright insulting when they come up with such howlers for what they think should have been done.  It rarely bears any rational relationship to exploring space or building a program to do that.  Gaia is a geologist, so "naturally" a geologist should be the first one on the Moon -- not just for scientific value, but because to do otherwise is "crazy and dangerous."  Dangerous?  That presumes quite a lot about what the typical geologist should be expected to know about the lunar environment -- and how to operate the equipment needed to get there.  It's hard to remain civil among those who believe that they and they alone know what to do, and that those others who demonstrated they could and did know what to do should automatically be suspect instead.  That's just straight-up narcissism.

I think it's more human nature than we give it credit for.  I see that particular narcissism as congruent with its milder form of "customers from hell."  I think we've all had them, or heard of them -- people who hire experts to do things they cannot do, and then second-guess and micromanage the subsequent process.
Title: Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
Post by: bknight on July 22, 2019, 02:45:36 PM
I'd love to know what a geologist would have done differently than Armstrong.

Crash the LM.

Quote
And how would "describing every single movement in detail" made things safer?

...or cure the notion that the Moon is "completely unknown."  It's not unknown.  We know, for example, that there's a vacuum.  And the vacuum that's a meter off the surface of the Moon is the same vacuum that's 200 km above the Earth's surface, in which several astronauts by that time had demonstrated the ability to work and for their suits to protect them.  No need to describe in detail verbally what vacuum is like on the lunar surface.  Ditto thermal issues, radiation issues, and so forth.  All those were knowns by the time Apollo 11 flew.  All you can really cite is diminished gravity.  From the engineering standpoint, that's the only thing it's truly hard to simulate exactly in a different environment.  And lo and behold, the crew described in detail what it was like to move in diminished gravity with the full EMU.  The full splendor of the problem wasn't entirely known, but by no means was it entirely unknown.  And let's not forget that Armstrong was initially tethered to the LM, presumably so he could be hauled up in an emergency.  He untethered once it became apparent that mobility wasn't going to present unexpected difficulty.

This is how engineers break down a complex problem like safe mobility on the Moon.  Comments like those from Gaia illustrate why he shouldn't be charged with solving those kinds of problems.

Quote
Typical narcissistic conspiracist.

I'm glad someone broached that.  I'm often sympathetic to "If I Ran the Zoo" arguments.  I reject them, of course, as evidence of a hoax.  But probative value aside, many of them are not especially ill-intentioned, and a few are defensibly reasoned from from a layman's point of view.  Which is to say they aren't always absurdly unreasonable, from a certain point of view.  Keep in mind that television on the lunar surface for Apollo 11 wasn't always a given, for example.  A lot of people at NASA were legitimately trying to run the zoo differently, and for good reasons.  And fairings over the SM RCS isn't an unreasonable expectation, for another example, if you don't know all the engineering details.  In a less contentious context you'd want to reward people for thinking through problems and asking questions, even if it's from an incomplete picture of the facts.  Sadly when they deploy it as a pro-hoax argument in the forum, it has to be rebutted.  And often that takes the form of inviting them to examine their assumptions, which in turn might mean facing up to not being as smart as they thought they were.  That's sometimes hard even for honest people.

The most difficult is when the suggestion is nominally reasonable.  "They should have..."  and yes, doing that was possible -- but it just didn't happen.  They could have, but they just didn't.  Or they didn't have to, but they did anyway.  The logical error here is the non sequitur to the notion of a hoax.  But when the other arguments and rebuttals take the form of, "They should have _____," followed by, "No, here's why it doesn't make sense to _____," then a new rebuttal of the form ,"Okay, they could have _____ but didn't; so what?" seems anticlimactic and unpersuasive.

Then at the other end of the spectrum are the narcissists.  With or without appropriate knowledge and expertise, they are simply unwilling to even consider the notion that what they think ought to have happened or not happened may not be the way it was.  Or the way it should have been.  Or even a particularly smart or possible way to do ti.  It's certainly annoying when they entrench themselves in their expectations.  But it's downright insulting when they come up with such howlers for what they think should have been done.  It rarely bears any rational relationship to exploring space or building a program to do that.  Gaia is a geologist, so "naturally" a geologist should be the first one on the Moon -- not just for scientific value, but because to do otherwise is "crazy and dangerous."  Dangerous?  That presumes quite a lot about what the typical geologist should be expected to know about the lunar environment -- and how to operate the equipment needed to get there.  It's hard to remain civil among those who believe that they and they alone know what to do, and that those others who demonstrated they could and did know what to do should automatically be suspect instead.  That's just straight-up narcissism.

I think it's more human nature than we give it credit for.  I see that particular narcissism as congruent with its milder form of "customers from hell."  I think we've all had them, or heard of them -- people who hire experts to do things they cannot do, and then second-guess and micromanage the subsequent process.

I thought the tether was used if, there were large soft spots that someone wander into and weren't able to leave(like quicksand on Earth).  But this would be a emergency for sure, hindering the mobility/distance from the LM.
Title: Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
Post by: apollo16uvc on July 22, 2019, 03:04:41 PM
I told him about the lunar orbiters, landers and impactors that landed/photographed/crashed the moon prior to Apollo.

Gaia denies all of them because space travel is a physical impossibility according to him.

 In fact, in his words he 'knowns' space travel, manned or unmanned, is impossible.
Title: Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
Post by: Jason Thompson on July 22, 2019, 03:20:03 PM
I told him about the lunar orbiters, landers and impactors that landed/photographed/crashed the moon prior to Apollo.

Gaia denies all of them because space travel is a physical impossibility according to him.

 In fact, in his words he 'knowns' space travel, manned or unmanned, is impossible.

Which rather makes all his other arguments pointless. If space travel is impossible then ass his arguments about moving on the Moon and not having a geologist on the first landing become moot. It's a pretty good indicator he is only trying to look smart by having all these arguments ready to use.

What, according to him, renders all space travel impossible?
Title: Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
Post by: onebigmonkey on July 22, 2019, 03:29:25 PM
I thought better of my original concluding comment "Gaia is an idiot" and deleted it.

I needn't have bothered.
Title: Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
Post by: ka9q on July 22, 2019, 03:49:24 PM
Ditto thermal issues, radiation issues, and so forth.
I disagree that the thermal issues were already known. The thermal environment on the moon is quite different from low earth orbit.

The two are the same in that approximately one hemisphere is black sky, which is essentially at absolute zero, with a 0.5 degree diameter ~6000K sun (sometimes) illuminating you. But the other hemispheres are vastly different. In earth orbit, you're exposed to an earth with a relatively uniform (day and night) effective temperature of 255 K. On the moon, you're exposed to a surface with a huge temperature range, from extremely cold (~95K) in shadowed areas prior to sunrise to ~390K (120C+) in areas normal to the sun. This was a significant design consideration for the CSM, which had to radiate the right amount of heat above lunar surfaces at all local times of day.

The suits were designed to insulate the wearer from as much of this as possible, but they weren't perfect. I know the Apollo 12 astronauts, at the least, remarked that they felt warmer on their second EVA than their first. They couldn't understand why this should be so, so this argues that their perceptions were real.

As for radiation, it was closely watched at least during the Apollo 11 EVA. A conversation on the flight loop (surgeon?) asks for more frequent dosimeter readings so they could establish a dose rate, since they didn't have a rate meter. The numbers were too low, though.
Title: Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
Post by: bknight on July 22, 2019, 03:57:45 PM
Ditto thermal issues, radiation issues, and so forth.
I disagree that the thermal issues were already known. The thermal environment on the moon is quite different from low earth orbit.

The two are the same in that approximately one hemisphere is black sky, which is essentially at absolute zero, with a 0.5 degree diameter ~6000K sun (sometimes) illuminating you. But the other hemispheres are vastly different. In earth orbit, you're exposed to an earth with a relatively uniform (day and night) effective temperature of 255 K. On the moon, you're exposed to a surface with a huge temperature range, from extremely cold (~95K) in shadowed areas prior to sunrise to ~390K (120C+) in areas normal to the sun. This was a significant design consideration for the CSM, which had to radiate the right amount of heat above lunar surfaces at all local times of day.

The suits were designed to insulate the wearer from as much of this as possible, but they weren't perfect. I know the Apollo 12 astronauts, at the least, remarked that they felt warmer on their second EVA than their first. They couldn't understand why this should be so, so this argues that their perceptions were real.

As for radiation, it was closely watched at least during the Apollo 11 EVA. A conversation on the flight loop (surgeon?) asks for more frequent dosimeter readings so they could establish a dose rate, since they didn't have a rate meter. The numbers were too low, though.

Just like it took them 30 minutes to "discover" that the whole Surveyor 3 was covered with dust.  ;)
Title: Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
Post by: JayUtah on July 22, 2019, 10:17:00 PM
Gaia denies all of them because space travel is a physical impossibility according to him.

What great disdain he seems to have for his betters.  Geology is not a licensed profession.  There is no consequence for being wrong.  Engineering, including aeronautical engineering, is a licensed profession.  There is a 13-hour exam to qualify in most states of the United States, and one is legally liable for the correctness of his findings thereafter.  From that position I assert not only that space travel is physical possible, it's a thriving industry.

Gaia is an insult to science.  His degrees, such as they may be, should be withdrawn.
Title: Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
Post by: Ranb on July 23, 2019, 07:53:48 PM
If someone is going to claim that space travel is impossible, then why bother with all of the other "evidence"?
Title: Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
Post by: Dalhousie on July 24, 2019, 05:56:10 PM
Gaia denies all of them because space travel is a physical impossibility according to him.

Quote
Geology is not a licensed profession. 

Your degree from a recognised institution is considered a licence.  Some specialisations, such as ore reserve estimation, require membership of a specific professional society.

Nor is licensing necessarily a better assurance of technical competence than the above.  Hence the number of licenced professionals who still do questionable work.

Quote
There is no consequence for being wrong.

You mean, other than being fired, sued, losing credibility, or being hauled before an official inquiry? 

Please research a bit deeper before criticising someone else's profession.

Title: Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
Post by: JayUtah on July 25, 2019, 09:27:02 AM
Please research a bit deeper before criticising someone else's profession.

You're right, I apologize.  My criticism was unfair and inaccurate.  I was attempting to criticize an individual and his individual behavior.  Somehow that morphed into criticizing an entire profession, which was not my intent.  There's no part of that post I think merits any attempt at explanation or rehabilitation.  I withdraw it entirely.
Title: Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
Post by: JayUtah on July 25, 2019, 09:51:00 AM
I disagree that the thermal issues were already known. The thermal environment on the moon is quite different from low earth orbit.

Different, yes, but not unknown.  The way I phrased it may have been unclear.  When talking strictly of vacuum, we don't distinguish between vacuum near an object and vacuum elsewhere.  When dealing with thermal issues, we do include the environs.  But those issues are not unknown or unknowable, and that was my point -- what I meant by "ditto." The LM designers, for example, knew that some radiators could not have a prolonged view factor that included the lunar surface because they knew the radiative properties and accounted for them.  Less ditto with Ionizing radiation and other design factorrs because the models weren't as well developed as for heat transfer.  But they were reasonably predictive.  That makes the the problem knowable enough to work out a short-term solution.  And then yes, as you mention, you measure scrupulously to make sure the statistical confidence you relied on for planning translates to operational confidence.
Title: Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
Post by: raven on July 25, 2019, 12:57:10 PM
Also, NASA did have direct experience with the lunar  environment with the Ranger, Surveyor and prosaically named Lunar Orbiter series before Apollo, so most surprises could have been sussed out that way.
Title: Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
Post by: ka9q on July 25, 2019, 06:23:13 PM
Different, yes, but not unknown.  The way I phrased it may have been unclear.  When talking strictly of vacuum, we don't distinguish between vacuum near an object and vacuum elsewhere.  When dealing with thermal issues, we do include the environs.  But those issues are not unknown or unknowable, and that was my point -- what I meant by "ditto."
While some of the thermal properties of the lunar surface were known from Lunar Orbiter and Surveyor, not all were. In particular, it was not known until the Apollo surface missions just how pernicious the lunar dust can be from a thermal standpoint. It sticks to everything, and even a small amount on a radiator significantly reduces its effectiveness.

The ALSEP reports show significantly higher than expected temperatures for many of the experiments, especially at the J-mission landing sites where the radiators viewed the surrounding mountains.
Title: Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
Post by: JayUtah on July 25, 2019, 06:51:10 PM
While some of the thermal properties of the lunar surface were known from Lunar Orbiter and Surveyor, not all were.

Granted.  But the concept I'm rebutting is that the Moon was a "completely unknown environment" (emphasis added).  In doing so I'm not trying to argue that it was a completely known environment.  If we agree that truth lies somewhere between those two extremes, then we could probably quibble endlessly (but nevertheless interestingly) over the propriety of design and operation.  And in the process we could probably find some legitimate design errors.

The syllogism I see at fault here is, "The Moon was a completely unknown environment, therefore it was dangerous for them not to have sent a geologist to land on it first."  One of the myriad things I find wrong with that argument is that the people who planned the missions and designed the equipment are seen to have had enough reliable knowledge of the environment in order to achieve success, where "success" allows for unforeseen detriments that could have been accommodated through conservative design and operation.

Quote
The ALSEP reports show significantly higher than expected temperatures for many of the experiments, especially at the J-mission landing sites where the radiators viewed the surrounding mountains.

Indeed, we've had this discussion before.  https://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=151.15  That includes me having recalled incorrectly then as now which equipment was in jeopardy, and you having corrected me to remind me it was the ALSEP radiators.  I should probably write that down somewhere, or at least compensate you for repeated fact-checking.  In any case, I interpreted that to mean the designers knew they needed a clear view of open sky in order for the radiators to work effectively and designed it ostensibly to provide that.  Do you interpret it instead to mean they weren't fully aware of the potential adverse effects of the environment?
Title: Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
Post by: ka9q on July 26, 2019, 08:45:26 AM
The designers certainly knew the radiators needed a view of dark sky. They did not need to avoid the sun, as they were second-surface mirrors with low absorptivity (high visible/near IR reflectivity). But a radiator must have high emissivity to function as a radiator, which means it will just as efficiently absorb far IR as radiate it. (An optical diode at a single wavelength, could be used to violate the second law of thermodynamics. Ergo, single-wavelength optical diodes don't exist. But nothing says you can't have a material absorb at one wavelength and reflect at another. That's the definition of a colored object.)

This property of radiators (direct sun OK, direct lunar surface exposure not OK) is one of those counter-intuitive yet factual things that trips up a lot of hoaxers and others who substitute their "common sense" for the laws of physics.

What the designers didn't know was just how much of a thermal problem lunar dust would be. That's my only point. Even Surveyor couldn't be expected to provide that information, but the Apollo astronauts discovered it pretty quickly.

Title: Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
Post by: JayUtah on July 26, 2019, 08:58:19 AM
What the designers didn't know was just how much of a thermal problem lunar dust would be. That's my only point. Even Surveyor couldn't be expected to provide that information, but the Apollo astronauts discovered it pretty quickly.

Okay, I think we agree.  So let's say the various effects of dust constituted an unforeseen hazard.  It was unforeseen by all the experts who contributed to Apollo mission planning, which included a fair number of top geologists.  Can you think of any reason why having a geologist onsite would have made the initial lunar missions safer with respect to dust behavior?  I'm struggling to come up with any.
Title: Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
Post by: Glom on July 29, 2019, 09:13:31 AM
I think Dalhousie gets the coveted "I corrected JayUtah" fleece. That's one better than the T-shirt.
Title: Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
Post by: Glom on July 29, 2019, 09:16:59 AM
What the designers didn't know was just how much of a thermal problem lunar dust would be. That's my only point. Even Surveyor couldn't be expected to provide that information, but the Apollo astronauts discovered it pretty quickly.

Okay, I think we agree.  So let's say the various effects of dust constituted an unforeseen hazard.  It was unforeseen by all the experts who contributed to Apollo mission planning, which included a fair number of top geologists.  Can you think of any reason why having a geologist onsite would have made the initial lunar missions safer with respect to dust behavior?  I'm struggling to come up with any.
What they should have done was have men of physical capability to land on and explore an uncertain environment with geologists in their ear advising based on close up observations as they came up.

That's what they should have done.

Also, space is risky business and society was a lot more cavalier than today. We triple check everything these days. A military pilot can't release a missile without there being a mountain of effort it is safe to do so, which is funny given the purpose of the missile is to make things very unsafe for another party.
Title: Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
Post by: JayUtah on July 29, 2019, 12:10:08 PM
What they should have done was have men of physical capability to land on and explore an uncertain environment with geologists in their ear advising based on close up observations as they came up.

That's what they should have done.

And I'm sure you're referring to the J-class missions, where that was almost literally what was done.  Even before Apollo 17 and Jack Schmitt, you had backroom geologists essentially directing the exploration.  This, of course, was to amplify the quality of science that the later missions were expected to produce.  Apollo 11 was the last test flight.  Its sole objective was "To perform a manned lunar landing and return."  All science objectives were secondary.  If conservative caution were expected to prevail über alles, then neither Armstrong nor Aldrin were compelled by mission rules to egress the LM.  What puzzles me about the claim is the notion that an onsite geologist was essential for the safety of the mission, and that it is irrational to think otherwise.  Not just to ensure better science, as we did in later missions, but to ensure safety.  I can come up with plenty of terrestrial situations where not having a qualified geologist onsite (or at least heavily involved) can risk serious danger.  But none of them is as literally pedestrian as walking around on the surface for an hour or two collecting random samples.  The argument goes on to play up the supposed hazards of a "completely unknown" environment.  Regardless of what extent you believe that environment to have been unknown, no effort seems to have been made to connect that premise to the conclusion that an onsite geologist was mandatory.  What was that geologist supposed to have done to mitigate the effects of allegedly unknown hazards?  When protection from those hazards is expressed in terms of custom-designed machinery and procedures for operating that machinery (spacecraft, EMUs, etc.) then what special expertise would a geologist bring to the table, that was not brought by the people actually assigned to the missions?

I concluded that the argument was a veiled hubristic attempt to assert the supremacy of geology among the sciences.  I'm ashamed of my emotional response to what I took the argument to be.  Even if that was the intended argument (and I'm not sure it was), it should be addressed fairly without ignorance, insult, and worse hubris on my part.

Quote
Also, space is risky business and society was a lot more cavalier than today. We triple check everything these days. A military pilot can't release a missile without there being a mountain of effort it is safe to do so, which is funny given the purpose of the missile is to make things very unsafe for another party.

This is actually something that science rightly praises the military for.  In many fields there is the need to manage high-risk technologies responsibly and rationally.  Recombinant DNA is an example, as is nuclear and petrochemical industrialization.  However, weapons of war are unique in the sense that they are intended to cause harm when used properly.  And, with a few notable examples notwithstanding, the military does an amazing job of routinely handling and operating intentionally dangerous technology with minimal collateral damage and mishap.  It may not seem like it, but in proportion to the sheer destructive power managed by military systems, it's a near-perfect rate of success.  We chalk this up precisely to rigidly set rules and highly authoritarian chains of command.  Many of us in the private sector secretly wish, at times, that we could issue instructions to our subordinates and be able to expect rote compliance.  In the military that is the norm.  Obedience breeds safety.

But yes, we have to recall that Apollo was part of a space race, and that the Soviet Union too had already suffered a number of failures for the sake of hurry.  We sent people to the Moon who were demonstrated to be able to fly experimental flying machines coolly and calmly, and to have temperaments well suited to thinking on their feet and solving unexpected problems creatively and dispassionately.
Title: Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
Post by: Morgul on July 29, 2019, 08:09:29 PM
And let's not forget that Armstrong was initially tethered to the LM, presumably so he could be hauled up in an emergency.  He untethered once it became apparent that mobility wasn't going to present unexpected difficulty.


Jay, can you provide more information on this?  I've never heard or seen anything about Armstrong being tethered as he exited the LM.  At what point did he actually untether himself?

I'm not questioning your comment, I'm just curious to learn more about it, I've never come across it mentioned before.
Title: Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
Post by: JayUtah on July 29, 2019, 08:24:04 PM
As usual, ALSJ is your friend.  It seems not a lot of other people knew about it either.
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11tether.html
Title: Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
Post by: VQ on July 30, 2019, 06:14:16 PM
Somehow that morphed into criticizing an entire profession...

#notallgeologists
Title: Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
Post by: ka9q on July 30, 2019, 10:43:05 PM
[What puzzles me about the claim is the notion that an onsite geologist was essential for the safety of the mission, and that it is irrational to think otherwise.
Well, we did have Jack Schmitt saying that it was easier for a scientist to learn how to fly than to teach a pilot to be a scientist, which I'm sure endeared him greatly to his fellow Apollo astronauts.

But your point is well taken. Even when Schmitt himself was on the moon, he (and Cernan) were greatly assisted by a backroom team of geologists back on earth. For the early missions, at least, it was essential to have the best pilots (or pilot/engineers) available, and to train them to do geology as well as you could. And many of them actually did a pretty good job at it.
Title: Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
Post by: Dalhousie on July 31, 2019, 04:34:09 AM
And let's not forget that Armstrong was initially tethered to the LM, presumably so he could be hauled up in an emergency.  He untethered once it became apparent that mobility wasn't going to present unexpected difficulty.


Jay, can you provide more information on this?  I've never heard or seen anything about Armstrong being tethered as he exited the LM.  At what point did he actually untether himself?

I'm not questioning your comment, I'm just curious to learn more about it, I've never come across it mentioned before.

You can also see it in the DAC footage here, from 6:27
Title: Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
Post by: JayUtah on July 31, 2019, 12:08:43 PM
Yeah, I have to confess I had forgotten about it too until I saw the DAC footage on a building-size screen.  Then I thought, "Oh, right -- the tether."  It really is hard to miss, and why everyone needs to see Apollo 11 on the biggest screen available.
Title: Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
Post by: JayUtah on July 31, 2019, 12:31:11 PM
Well, we did have Jack Schmitt saying that it was easier for a scientist to learn how to fly than to teach a pilot to be a scientist, which I'm sure endeared him greatly to his fellow Apollo astronauts.

And he'd proven it by graduating very high among his class of Air Force cadets.  This forum itself and those like it are testaments to the colossal amount of comprehension and facility people can acquire in such specialties as space and engineering without being formally qualified.  I agree with your opinion below that pilot/engineers were the best choices for the early missions until we had a basis for estimating confidence with the machinery.  NASA's rationale that there could be no passengers in Apollo was fairly overbaked in my opinion.  I really do think there was a predilection for hotshot test pilots just because it was the flashy billet and that's where NASA's roots had been planted.  Pilots are used to lobbying for top assignments, and I don't think the dynamic was the same among top-ranked scientists.  But I also think if the Apollo program had ended without a single career scientist setting foot on the lunar surface, it would have risked being labeled a scientific failure.

Quote
But your point is well taken. Even when Schmitt himself was on the moon, he (and Cernan) were greatly assisted by a backroom team of geologists back on earth. For the early missions, at least, it was essential to have the best pilots (or pilot/engineers) available, and to train them to do geology as well as you could. And many of them actually did a pretty good job at it.

They did, because they were fundamentally ambitious, driven people.  The bias we must dispel is the notion that geologists and other relevant scientists or practitioners can't be the same kind of people.  Schmitt is a singular example, but there were certainly more like him.  Obviously putting a geologist like Schmitt on the Moon as a firsthand observer and field worker is essential to scientific success.  But it's far better when one professional on the lunar surface can converse with similarly qualified professionals back at home in the dialect of their profession.  I'm sure we've all felt the frustration of trying to communicate with non-specialists.
Title: Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
Post by: onebigmonkey on July 31, 2019, 12:38:47 PM
I often wonder how Dave Scott regards the talk about geologists on the moon - he certainly put a lot of work into his own understanding of the subject.
Title: Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
Post by: Dalhousie on August 01, 2019, 04:52:21 AM
I can understand the rationale for not have a scientist on the first few missions, but I have always wondered at the original the plan not to actually fly one to Apollo 18, and then only perhaps one after that more after that (Lind on Apollo 20). Likewise the slowness to deploy the LRV
Title: Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
Post by: Abaddon on August 01, 2019, 06:10:08 AM
I can understand the rationale for not have a scientist on the first few missions, but I have always wondered at the original the plan not to actually fly one to Apollo 18, and then only perhaps one after that more after that (Lind on Apollo 20).
Easier to train a test pilot to do geology than vice versa. In the event of a problem, you are going to need a test pilot, not a geologist.
Likewise the slowness to deploy the LRV
Different objectives competing for a very limited payload. Something has to give.
Title: Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
Post by: Glom on August 02, 2019, 10:40:22 AM
Obedience breeds safety.

Well... I wouldn't bank on the universality of that mantra. Piper Alpha suggests that has its limits.

"Shall we shut off the gas flow to the platform that is burning down?"

"Until I have me orders, no."
Title: Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
Post by: JayUtah on August 02, 2019, 12:17:32 PM
Well... I wouldn't bank on the universality of that mantra. Piper Alpha suggests that has its limits.

I agree.  You don't remove individual judgment entirely from the equation.  You just arrange for the consequences of independent action to more strongly disfavor casual disobedience.  In the case of skilled operators, you would ostensibly be able to teach them enough about the nature of the system so that they understand the rationale behind rote procedure.  Then in the event the procedure doesn't seem intuitively correct, they have some basis of knowledge.  And, hopefully, some recognition of autonomy from higher authority during later review.  The success factor in the military's handling of high-risk technology is that the authority structure allows relatively unskilled operators to be employed.  Obviously that's not meant as a slight to anyone who has served in the E-level pay grades.  One certainly can understand the basis of orders and procedures at any pay grade.  But if one is conditioned to obey instinctively, then one doesn't need to understand the basis of orders.

Anywhere I go and see unintuitive ground rules, the people who enforce them usually tell me, "Yeah, there's a story behind each one of those."  And consequently, in my own operations, I still have to spend too much time correcting things and very much wanting to say, "Now if you had done this the way we told you to do it..."  The people responsible for the errors were conscientious, well-meaning, and intuitive.  They just didn't have to learn the lesson the hard way at everyone's expense.  The military method of regulating high-risk technology may certainly have its flaws.  But it leverages obedient workers in ways that compensates for the shortcomings of those workers and the inherent danger of working with weapons.  And people who study how accidents happen seem to have suitable praise for its effectiveness overall.
Title: Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
Post by: Dalhousie on August 03, 2019, 08:31:03 PM
I can understand the rationale for not have a scientist on the first few missions, but I have always wondered at the original the plan not to actually fly one to Apollo 18, and then only perhaps one after that more after that (Lind on Apollo 20).
Easier to train a test pilot to do geology than vice versa. In the event of a problem, you are going to need a test pilot, not a geologist.

Most astronauts are not test pilots these days, or even pilots.  They seem to perform fine.

Even during Apollo the test pilot requirement was dropped from astronaut group 3, nine of the 14 flew on Apollo, eight on significant first missions (Gemini 8, Apollo 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, for four this was their first flight.

You are also underestimating the technical competence of the astronaut scientists.  After Apollo 12, which could perhaps still be classed as a test mission to some extent, can you name one mission task that was beyond the capabilities of say Schmitt, Garriott, Gibson, or Kirwin (group 4), or Henize, England, Musgrave, Lenoir, Parker, Thornton, or Allen (group 6)? Schmitt did a superb job on 17, Kirwin was involved in the recovery of Skylab, and Musgrave's record remains exceptional to this day.  If there were such tasks, please name them.

Likewise the slowness to deploy the LRV
Different objectives competing for a very limited payload. Something has to give.[/quote]

Since the LRV was eventually brought forward from 18 to 15 those competing objectives turned out to be less important than envisaged.

Title: Re: Fakeologist live stream debunking Apollo landing
Post by: Abaddon on August 05, 2019, 10:11:51 AM
Easy for us to say now, but it wasn't NASA policy at the time. Do I think that policy was wrong? Sure. Nothing we can do about it now.