ApolloHoax.net

Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: Gardum on September 04, 2017, 09:35:29 PM

Title: Gardum's thread
Post by: Gardum on September 04, 2017, 09:35:29 PM
Hello,

I couldn't post before hand as my account had never been authorised so I am here as a noob and first time poster.
Funny thing is I have found the opposite in the sense that I have found truther's to make fake accounts to make out as though there are more believers or promoting the same so called evidence or confirmation.
I have found quite a few people that are believers that just make up stories left and right that go against the transcripts as well as equipment lists provided by NASA and easily found from the NASA site.
I also see a lot of SPECIAL being flouted by believers with no link to what the SPECIAL is.
Made up stories about SPECIAL battery packs, where as the truth is as explained by NASA of the shelf technology was used where ever possible and batteries were one of the off the shelf items used.
Every truther makes out they know for fact how temperatures work in space and on the Moon, yet NASA states complete opposite views as they seem to have results from experiments done in space and on the Moon showing temperatures.
Ask any truther and temperature works like magic in space and on the Moon, NASA states below 56C in the shade which would make any Film unusable but of course Silver Anodising stops anything from getting hot or cold as truthers will say.
Leave an item on the Moon in the shade for 8 hours and truthers say no problems it won't get to cold, what temperature it does get none of them say but it's not bad as otherwise it would go against the possibility of certain things being possible.
NASA states 123C in the Sun on the Moon at the minimum because of the time they landed.
Funny thing is from all scientific sites I could find once the Sun shines on anything in space and on the Moon it doesn't matter what time of day it is as there is no atmosphere for the Sun to go through to lesson it's effects.
Any object in direct Sun can reach a temperature of 250C which is what happens and again proof from ISS Astronauts and Shuttle crew explaining the problems they have whilst outside in space with tools getting so hot they need to use insulation wraps or blankets.
This was easily found by a couple Google checks from NASA missions from the ISS and Shuttle Crew.
Yet when it comes to the Moon it's all SPECIAL no metal objects get to hot or too cold, must have been the Goldilocks time of day on the Moon each time.
Not one of you people look at the video and see them moving in slow motion and have one problem with it, all you get is well they wouldn't move fast as the ground has sharp rocks and they could cut their suit or something similar, yet truth shows them falling let right and centre doing weird movements to get back up, not once do you hear any of them talking as though at any second they could die.
First people on the Moon never done before never landed a manned vehicle on the Moon all first time events as none of the equipment they used had ever been tested in a Lunar environment.
Yet they went from a less than 60% success rate to a 100% for every manned mission.
Years later they couldn't get close to this with the Shuttle missions.
I am sure I will get a few responses that Believers would never lie or make things up :)
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Geordie on September 04, 2017, 10:19:56 PM
[Large body of text with no white space]

That post is daunting, what with the complete absence of white space. My eyeballs had a fit. Please let me suggest that you hit the Enter key twice instead of just once.

I'm a newby here as well, but welcome!
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Geordie on September 04, 2017, 10:28:42 PM
Yet they went from a less than 60% success rate to a 100% for every manned mission.
Years later they couldn't get close to this with the Shuttle missions.
I am sure I will get a few responses that Believers would never lie or make things up :)
You contend that 98.5% is not close to 100%?
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: bknight on September 04, 2017, 11:49:37 PM
Hello,

I couldn't post before hand as my account had never been authorised so I am here as a noob and first time poster.
Welcome to the board.  As Geordie has indicated, use some text formatting to make your posts more easily read.
Quote
Funny thing is I have found the opposite in the sense that I have found truther's to make fake accounts to make out as though there are more believers or promoting the same so called evidence or confirmation.
I have found quite a few people that are believers that just make up stories left and right that go against the transcripts as well as equipment lists provided by NASA and easily found from the NASA site.
Here you won't find anyone making claims that are not backed up with either firsthand knowledge/experience or links to data.
Quote
I also see a lot of SPECIAL being flouted by believers with no link to what the SPECIAL is.
Made up stories about SPECIAL battery packs, where as the truth is as explained by NASA of the shelf technology was used where ever possible and batteries were one of the off the shelf items used.
Could you be more specific, this allegation is incomplete as far as answering, what SPECIAL?
Quote
Every truther makes out they know for fact how temperatures work in space and on the Moon, yet NASA states complete opposite views as they seem to have results from experiments done in space and on the Moon showing temperatures.

Temperatures follow how physics work whether on Earth, in space, on the moon, on Mars, everywhere.  For example heat of which temperature are a measure of, have only three ways of transferring to say a film cassette.  They are Conduction, Convection and Radiation.  Conductance is the direct transfer of heat by contact.  Convection is the transfer of heat by currents of an atmosphere.  Radiation is the transfer of heat by absorption of a light source. Now Convection is virtually impossible in the near zero atmosphere of the Moon.  Conduction requires two objects to be in contact long enough for heat to flow from the hot surface to a cooler surface.  You mention film later in the post, but I'll address it here.  The film canisters would have to be in contact with the surface of the Moon long enough for the film to heat up, not done during the lunar EVA's.  The third way is one of the easiest to protect against.  All one has to do is make the surface shiny so that most of the energy to be bounces away and not have them in direct sunlight for a prolonged period of time.   You will note that the film canisters were very shiny.  So high temps in the Apollo mission were not a problem.  As far as the low temperatures, this again was not an issue as the film was initially produced to operate in temperature ranges of 120-65 C.
https://sterileeye.com/2009/07/23/the-apollo-11-hasselblad-cameras/

Quote

Ask any truther and temperature works like magic in space and on the Moon, NASA states below 56C in the shade which would make any Film unusable but of course Silver Anodising stops anything from getting hot or cold as truthers will say.
Where does NASA indicate that film would be unusable at -56, or is this your assumption?

Quote
Leave an item on the Moon in the shade for 8 hours and truthers say no problems it won't get to cold, what temperature it does get none of them say but it's not bad as otherwise it would go against the possibility of certain things being possible.
NASA states 123C in the Sun on the Moon at the minimum because of the time they landed.
Funny thing is from all scientific sites I could find once the Sun shines on anything in space and on the Moon it doesn't matter what time of day it is as there is no atmosphere for the Sun to go through to lesson it's effects.
Any object in direct Sun can reach a temperature of 250C which is what happens and again proof from ISS Astronauts and Shuttle crew explaining the problems they have whilst outside in space with tools getting so hot they need to use insulation wraps or blankets.
This was easily found by a couple Google checks from NASA missions from the ISS and Shuttle Crew.
Yet when it comes to the Moon it's all SPECIAL no metal objects get to hot or too cold, must have been the Goldilocks time of day on the Moon each time.
Your lack of understanding of heat flow is noted, read my descriptions and if you don't believe them, Google it your self.
Quote
Not one of you people look at the video and see them moving in slow motion and have one problem with it, all you get is well they wouldn't move fast as the ground has sharp rocks and they could cut their suit or something similar, yet truth shows them falling let right and centre doing weird movements to get back up, not once do you hear any of them talking as though at any second they could die.
While death was always a constant on the Lunar surface, I personally don't see them moving slow motion, I see them traversing with bulky suits that limited quick movements.  If you look at enough videos you will many falls.
Quote
First people on the Moon never done before never landed a manned vehicle on the Moon all first time events as none of the equipment they used had ever been tested in a Lunar environment.
The astronauts practiced many times to perfect landings.  The equipment to land on the Moon could not be tested here on Earth as the thrust was not sufficient to prevent crashes here due to higher gravity, so simulators were used to hone the techniques.
Quote
Yet they went from a less than 60% success rate to a 100% for every manned mission.
Years later they couldn't get close to this with the Shuttle missions.
Where are you quoting statistics?

Quote
I am sure I will get a few responses that Believers would never lie or make things up :)
I am not a "believer"  Apollo happened as advertised, it is you who believe that it didn't.  The immense amount of data that is present is proves the landings occurred.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: smartcooky on September 05, 2017, 01:38:51 AM
Fail No. 1:  High School Freshman year physics - trying to apply "Earth, with an atmosphere" thinking to the "moon; no atmosphere" reality... a rookie mistake; you have not made a very good start.

You are going to have to come up with better arguments here than you have to in the echo-chamber of conspiracy forums. We are not bunch of Googleversity students here. There are real scientists, real professors of mathematics, real aerospace engineers and real professionals in the fields of photography, cinematography, radio and electronics.

It will not be enough to shoot off unsupported assertions and wild, extravagant claims. You will need something we call 'evidence" to back up any claims that you make. If you don't provide evidence your claim will be dismissed.

The Apollo Programme is established fact. It is backed up by the evidence of half a million people across an enormous range of technical and scientific fields of expertise who were directly or indirectly involved. It is backed up by the evidence TENS OF MILLIONS of technical documents, much of which is freely available to the public. It is backed up by the evidence of an unbroken and consistent narrative from the beginning of the Mercury Program right up until well after the Apollo 17 (last) mission.

Let me point you in the right direction for a start. Here is a man who says he doesn't know whether America put a man on the moon or not, and what's more he doesn't really care either way. What he DOES know however (and he can prove it categorically) is that they they did not fake the filming of the moon landings. Its worth your while to watch this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGXTF6bs1IU
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on September 05, 2017, 02:24:14 AM
Gardum, another thing rather than using this pinned thread I suggest you start your own topic. It just makes things nice and tidy.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: onebigmonkey on September 05, 2017, 03:20:09 AM

<other stuff removed>

Not one of you people look at the video and see them moving in slow motion and have one problem with it, all you get is well they wouldn't move fast as the ground has sharp rocks and they could cut their suit or something similar, yet truth shows them falling let right and centre doing weird movements to get back up, not once do you hear any of them talking as though at any second they could die.

You maybe need to listen to the reactions of Duke & Young after their Apollo 16 'Olympics'. They were very concerned. You might also want to look into the construction of the suits - from the way they were built it's almost as if they were expecting them to have to stand up to some wear and tear.

Quote
First people on the Moon never done before never landed a manned vehicle on the Moon all first time events as none of the equipment they used had ever been tested in a Lunar environment.

You mean a vacuum with temperature extremes? Try doing some searching on the testing that was done on the equipment before it even went into space. You mean in space itself? Look into all of the Apollo missions, not just the ones that landed.

Quote
Yet they went from a less than 60% success rate to a 100% for every manned mission.

You think everything went absolutely perfectly on every mission? Really? Again, do some research. Even if you're unaware of the technical issues that occurred with every mission, surely you've come across Apollo 13?

Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: smartcooky on September 05, 2017, 07:41:05 AM
Not one of you people look at the video and see them moving in slow motion and have one problem with it

I don't have a problem with it because I understand why their movements were the way the were (and it isn't slow motion BTW).

Film-maker after film-maker has tried to replicate that movement with camera trickery, overcranking  and slow motion cinematography, and they have failed. No one has been able to duplicate it.... Space 1999 (which ran fron 1975-77, Moontrap (1989) Moon (2009), and others have all failed to accurately replicate this motion. Why? Because it requires filming in a 1/6th gravity environment, and there is simply nowhere on earth you can get this.

Also, there is the dust. When the astronauts move around they kick up dust, and unlike the earth where there is full gravity and an atmosphere, on the moon it is 1/6th gravity and a vacuum. The dust behaves exactly as it would in a vacuum at low gravity... it does not make dust clouds, it falls straight back on the ground... that can only happen if the astronauts are moving around in a vacuum.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Trebor on September 05, 2017, 08:29:54 AM
Hi Gardum,
There seems to be a whole lot of 'citation needed' in this.

NASA states below 56C in the shade which would make any Film unusable....

Where does NASA state this?

...but of course Silver Anodising stops anything from getting hot or cold as truthers will say.
Um, who says this? This seems to be a huge oversimplification of how heat is transferred by radiation.

NASA states 123C in the Sun on the Moon at the minimum because of the time they landed.
Where does NASA state this?

Funny thing is from all scientific sites I could find once the Sun shines on anything in space and on the Moon it doesn't matter what time of day it is as there is no atmosphere for the Sun to go through to lesson it's effects.
Source?

I'll stop there.
Welcome to the forum anyway.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Zakalwe on September 05, 2017, 12:06:06 PM
SNIP

As others have said, use punctuation. It makes it so much easier for you to make yourself understood.


Not one of you people look at the video and see them moving in slow motion

They are not "moving in slow motion". They are moving as one would do in a low gravity vacuum when wearing a stiff, pressurised suit.

all you get is well they wouldn't move fast as the ground has sharp rocks and they could cut their suit or something similar,
What on Earth are you on about here? Are you trying to relay something that some unknown person has told you? Your ignorance about the most basic pieces of knowledge is blinding you. Why don't you go and do a modicum of research, perhaps on the materials that the suits were made of? Or the overshoes that they wore to protect the suit boots? Or the outermost layer of Teflon-coated Beta cloth that was part of the ITMG that was selected precisely for it's wear and abrasion-resistance characteristics? Or of the Chromel-R that was used in the boots and gloves to protect from abrasion?

Also, why do you think that the rocks were sharp?


doing weird movements to get back up

Again, they are not doing "weird movements". How, exactly, would you expect someone to move whilst wearing a stiff pressurised suit and PLSS backpack when in a low gravity vacuum. Here's a hint- the movements would be totally unlike the movements made in a 1 G, 1 bar atmosphere. Again you are showing your total ignorance of even the most basic of facts. You're also making a standard hoaxie claim "Gee...it looks weird". Of course it looks weird...low gravity vacuum environments are anything but normal!

The videos of them falling and kicking up regolith is actually a proff that they are in a low G vacuum. The regolith moves in a ballistic arc....if the Lunar EVAs were filmed on a sounstage on Earth then the regolith would not move like that. The finer material would billow and float in the air.


not once do you hear any of them talking as though at any second they could die.
Why would they?
I presume that you have travelled in a plane? Driven a car? Do you constantly talk about the dangers of crashing, falling from the sky, engine failure, terrorist bomb, a truck running a red light and side-swiping you? Why ever not....driving and flying are dangerous and any second something could happen to kill you to death.

NASA analysed how astronauts move when they fall. After all, it would have been a massive oversight if an astronaut fell and was unable to right himself, or if the spacesuit tore in a slight tumble. Or do you really think that they went to the Moon and didn't make sure that the suits would be up to the task at hand?
Read this report and then come back with your analysis: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/19730008098_1973008098.pdf
(Actually, I know that you won't. People that regurgitate the nonsense that you have posted either aren't capable of reading and understanding this type of material or they refuse to do so. To do so would challenge their hoax beliefs. However, i'll post it just in case there is a lurker reading this that is unsure how to deal with hoax beliefs and finds the information useful.)
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on September 05, 2017, 02:20:50 PM

I don't have a problem with it because I understand why their movements were the way the were (and it isn't slow motion BTW).

Film-maker after film-maker has tried to replicate that movement with camera trickery, overcranking  and slow motion cinematography, and they have failed. No one has been able to duplicate it.... Space 1999 (which ran fron 1975-77, Moontrap (1989) Moon (2009), and others have all failed to accurately replicate this motion. Why? Because it requires filming in a 1/6th gravity environment, and there is simply nowhere on earth you can get this.

Also, there is the dust. When the astronauts move around they kick up dust, and unlike the earth where there is full gravity and an atmosphere, on the moon it is 1/6th gravity and a vacuum. The dust behaves exactly as it would in a vacuum at low gravity... it does not make dust clouds, it falls straight back on the ground... that can only happen if the astronauts are moving around in a vacuum.

I believe that someone showed a video of astronauts with the speed increased to the level that HB's believe it was slowed down from(astrobrant2? possibly?). Basically it shows that the hand motions of the astronauts become comically fast.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: raven on September 05, 2017, 03:37:32 PM

I don't have a problem with it because I understand why their movements were the way the were (and it isn't slow motion BTW).

Film-maker after film-maker has tried to replicate that movement with camera trickery, overcranking  and slow motion cinematography, and they have failed. No one has been able to duplicate it.... Space 1999 (which ran fron 1975-77, Moontrap (1989) Moon (2009), and others have all failed to accurately replicate this motion. Why? Because it requires filming in a 1/6th gravity environment, and there is simply nowhere on earth you can get this.

Also, there is the dust. When the astronauts move around they kick up dust, and unlike the earth where there is full gravity and an atmosphere, on the moon it is 1/6th gravity and a vacuum. The dust behaves exactly as it would in a vacuum at low gravity... it does not make dust clouds, it falls straight back on the ground... that can only happen if the astronauts are moving around in a vacuum.

I believe that someone showed a video of astronauts with the speed increased to the level that HB's believe it was slowed down from(astrobrant2? possibly?). Basically it shows that the hand motions of the astronauts become comically fast.
Yeah, it was a video showing the Apollo 14 inadvertent pendulum (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kojsfbN8ulc). The length of time it swings shows it's in a pretty hard vacuum too. ytmoog did a shorter vid (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kojsfbN8ulc) as well on the subject.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: bknight on September 05, 2017, 04:07:29 PM
Yeah, it was a video showing the Apollo 14 inadvertent pendulum (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kojsfbN8ulc). The length of time it swings shows it's in a pretty hard vacuum too. ytmoog did a shorter vid (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kojsfbN8ulc) as well on the subject.
The calculations are awesome for the fundamentally challenged. :)
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Trebor on September 05, 2017, 04:52:58 PM
...
Yeah, it was a video showing the Apollo 14 inadvertent pendulum (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kojsfbN8ulc). The length of time it swings shows it's in a pretty hard vacuum too. ytmoog did a shorter vid (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kojsfbN8ulc) as well on the subject.
You linked the same video....?
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: raven on September 05, 2017, 05:05:45 PM
...
Yeah, it was a video showing the Apollo 14 inadvertent pendulum (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kojsfbN8ulc). The length of time it swings shows it's in a pretty hard vacuum too. ytmoog did a shorter vid (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kojsfbN8ulc) as well on the subject.
You linked the same video....?
Oops! Here's (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4dmrFX76Oc) the other video I meant to link.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Zakalwe on September 05, 2017, 06:59:41 PM
Im willing to wager that our new arrival is a seagull poster. I suspect that he's made his only contribution and we'll not hear from him again.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on September 05, 2017, 07:09:09 PM
He is quite persistent on YouTube.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: bknight on September 05, 2017, 07:12:03 PM
Im willing to wager that our new arrival is a seagull poster. I suspect that he's made his only contribution and we'll not hear from him again.

You're probably correct, but I hope not it was a breath of fresh air to the postings of the last year.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: smartcooky on September 05, 2017, 10:15:41 PM
He is quite persistent on YouTube.

You say that like it's good thing

IMO he comes across as someone who thinks he knows far more than he actually does. It was disappointing to see a new poster fall at the first hurdle; a lack of understanding of basic schoolboy science.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Ranb on September 05, 2017, 11:23:00 PM
First people on the Moon never done before never landed a manned vehicle on the Moon all first time events as none of the equipment they used had ever been tested in a Lunar environment.

Well, it is true that the Apollo 11 crew had not landed a vehicle on the moon prior to July 1969, but Apollo 9 did test the LM in Earth orbit, and Apollo 10 operated the LM in a lunar environment when testing the abort procedure.  Don't forget the unmanned test of the LM on Apollo 5.  There were also several Surveyor missions to the Moon which tested systems required for soft landings. 

Someone had to be first to land on the moon, it just so happens that the crew of Apollo 11 was chosen to do so after many tests and missions were successful.  Everything had to happen the 1st time eventually.  Saying something never happened before is not a good reason to doubt that it ever happened.

ranb
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: smartcooky on September 06, 2017, 12:52:06 AM
First people on the Moon never done before never landed a manned vehicle on the Moon all first time events as none of the equipment they used had ever been tested in a Lunar environment.

Well, it is true that the Apollo 11 crew had not landed a vehicle on the moon prior to July 1969, but Apollo 9 did test the LM in Earth orbit, and Apollo 10 operated the LM in a lunar environment when testing the abort procedure.  Don't forget the unmanned test of the LM on Apollo 5.  There were also several Surveyor missions to the Moon which tested systems required for soft landings. 

Someone had to be first to land on the moon, it just so happens that the crew of Apollo 11 was chosen to do so after many tests and missions were successful.  Everything had to happen the 1st time eventually.  Saying something never happened before is not a good reason to doubt that it ever happened.

ranb


Hillary and Tenzing were first to climb Everest. Must have been fake because no-one did it before
The Mongolfier  brothers were the first to get airborne in hot air balloon. Must have been fake because no-one did it before
Yuri Gagarin was the first man to orbit the Earth in a space capsule. Must have been fake because no-one did it before
John Alcock and Arthur Brown were the first men to fly across the Atlantic Ocean.  Must have been fake because no-one did it before

etc, etc etc.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: nomuse on September 06, 2017, 01:15:12 AM
Sigh. Another Gish Gallop.

He seems to be trying to make a general, systemic point; pointing at general attitudes and trends of argument. But he's trying to support that general argument with severely under-argued specific points. All at once in one big jumble.

He doesn't just need to know what a paragraph is, he needs to know what it does. And how, too, to structure an essay. He speaks all his part at once, cues and all.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Obviousman on September 06, 2017, 03:50:11 AM
And let's not forget the LLTV. Armstrong himself said though it was actually hazardous, it was essential and recommend that all future LM CDRs undertake training in it.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on September 06, 2017, 04:00:32 AM


You say that like it's good thing

IMO he comes across as someone who thinks he knows far more than he actually does. It was disappointing to see a new poster fall at the first hurdle; a lack of understanding of basic schoolboy science.

I expressed those exact sentiments on a youtube post of his yesterday. But for the first time in months he seems to not be replying.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Zakalwe on September 06, 2017, 04:41:45 AM
He is quite persistent on YouTube.

This place is not the swamp that is YouTube. Gardum will not find his comments being "liked" or replied to with comments like "hur, hur, hur, yeah astro-noughts". His words will be critically examined and if found wanting, will be ripped to shreds. He clearly has neither the knowledge or the clarity of thinking to be able to support any of the garbage that he has posted. hence, my feelings that he will be nothing more than a seagull poster.

If he does come back then I will be surprised and would expect him to implode and flounce shortly afterwards.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on September 06, 2017, 04:51:27 AM

This place is not the swamp that is YouTube. Gardum will not find his comments being "liked" or replied to with comments like "hur, hur, hur, yeah astro-noughts". His words will be critically examined and if found wanting, will be ripped to shreds. He clearly has neither the knowledge or the clarity of thinking to be able to support any of the garbage that he has posted. hence, my feelings that he will be nothing more than a seagull poster.

If he does come back then I will be surprised and would expect him to implode and flounce shortly afterwards.

In a way that is why I pushed him in this direction, from my discussions there does seem to be a bit of light and I always like to think that someone can be turned from the dark side. :) I have succeeded three times to my knowledge but this guy needed some extra guns.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Zakalwe on September 06, 2017, 05:13:41 AM
In a way that is why I pushed him in this direction, from my discussions there does seem to be a bit of light and I always like to think that someone can be turned from the dark side. :) I have succeeded three times to my knowledge but this guy needed some extra guns.

Wilful ignorance is entirely in the hands of the individual, but the nature of their delusion is that they are, in the main, emotionally wedded to their crazy beliefs.

It's the ultimate irony that the ones that bang-on about "truthers", "believers" "closed minds" are the very ones that are the most closed-minded and refuse to even try to learn.  Personally I think that the only benefit to be gained from entertaining them is to show an innocent bystander, who may be genuinely interested in learning, just how ridiculous the whole hoax-belief  crock-of-BS really is.


<edit> Correct quotation error.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Zakalwe on September 06, 2017, 05:21:22 AM
all first time events as none of the equipment they used had ever been tested in a Lunar environment.

^^An example of lazy thinking^^ Ten minutes on Wikipedia would have relieved Gardum of his clear ignorance of early test flights in the program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Apollo_missions. He is also clearly ignorant of the tests of the spacesuits in both vacuum chamber tests and LEO tests, the flights of Apollo 8 (testing cis-Lunar flight, LOI, TEI etc.), Apollo 10 (all of the above, Lunar descent, Lunar abort sequences and orbital insertion).

His post is a shameful display of ignorance.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Obviousman on September 06, 2017, 05:30:08 AM
Please be fair. Give them a chance to reply. They may be unavailable due work, or other reason.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Jason Thompson on September 06, 2017, 07:16:29 AM
Hello,

Hello and welcome.

Quote
Ask any truther and temperature works like magic in space and on the Moon

Nope, temperature works in very defined ways everywhere.

Quote
NASA states below 56C in the shade which would make any Film unusable but of course Silver Anodising stops anything from getting hot or cold as truthers will say.

Nope. Things left in the dark on the Moon for up to two weeks reach that low temperature. Thermal control in a vacuum is a well-studied science. Presumably you believe all photography using film in space to be faked, since they would have the same supposed 'problem'.

Quote
NASA states 123C in the Sun on the Moon at the minimum because of the time they landed.
Funny thing is from all scientific sites I could find once the Sun shines on anything in space and on the Moon it doesn't matter what time of day it is as there is no atmosphere for the Sun to go through to lesson it's effects.

It does matter what time of day it is for the same reason time of day (and season) makes a difference to temperature here on Earth. It's not a function of atmosphere but angle of illumination. Low sun angle results in slower heating than high sun angle.
 
Quote
Yet when it comes to the Moon it's all SPECIAL no metal objects get to hot or too cold, must have been the Goldilocks time of day on the Moon each time.

That and the different thermal properties of every object and spacecraft.

Quote
Not one of you people look at the video and see them moving in slow motion and have one problem with it,

No, I don't have a problem because I don't see them moving in slow motion. I see them working with their hands and arms at the same pace they do on Earth. I see movements influenced by gravity being slower and that's all. Try speeding up the video of all the missions and find a section that shows an astronaut using his hands and arms that doesn't look ludicrously sped up.

Quote
First people on the Moon never done before never landed a manned vehicle on the Moon

Test pilots flying new planes for the first time don't know if it's going to land safely or slam into the ground, or break up in mid-flight. Ultimately the only way to test a spacecraft designed to be piloted to a safe landing on the Moon is to put two people in it and get them to pilot it to a landing, just as the only way to fully test a new aircraft is to put a pilot in it and get him to fly it.

Quote
all first time events as none of the equipment they used had ever been tested in a Lunar environment.

Apollo 5, 9 and 10 all tested the lunar module in every aspect of its capability except the landing itself. Apollo 11 was the final test. Risky? Undoubtedly. Unbelievably so? Not at all.

Quote
Yet they went from a less than 60% success rate to a 100% for every manned mission.

Improvements in success rates during development of technology are expected. Every manned flight had a glitch of some kind, and Apollo 13 was not a success in terms of its main objective. That is not a 100% success rate.

Quote
Years later they couldn't get close to this with the Shuttle missions.

Two failures 17 years apart in over 100 flights across three decades isn't close to a 100% success rate?

Quote
I am sure I will get a few responses that Believers would never lie or make things up :)

No, you'll get responses that deal with the substance of your posts. no-one here takes Apollo on blind faith.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: smartcooky on September 06, 2017, 07:51:54 AM
Quote
Yet they went from a less than 60% success rate to a 100% for every manned mission.

Improvements in success rates during development of technology are expected. Every manned flight had a glitch of some kind, and Apollo 13 was not a success in terms of its main objective. That is not a 100% success rate.

Quote
Years later they couldn't get close to this with the Shuttle missions.

Two failures 17 years apart in over 100 flights across three decades isn't close to a 100% success rate?

Not to mention that the Apollo programme was not 100% successful in terms of astronaut survival... they lost three in the Apollo 1 fire.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: gillianren on September 06, 2017, 12:35:01 PM
I would also point out that we as a species are just not capable of projecting fear that much of the time.  Eventually, even though we're still aware of it, our body has to either stop producing adrenaline or die.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Geordie on September 06, 2017, 01:00:39 PM
Ask any truther and temperature works like magic in space and on the Moon
Nope, temperature works in very defined ways everywhere.
I quite like the 'idea' that a trip to the moon would require mages.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: raven on September 06, 2017, 05:01:54 PM
I quite like the 'idea' that a trip to the moon would require mages.
It would make a neat short story, certainly. I might try writing it some time.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: smartcooky on September 06, 2017, 07:46:45 PM
I quite like the 'idea' that a trip to the moon would require mages.
It would make a neat short story, certainly. I might try writing it some time.

I now call for nominations for the role of blackboard monitor!
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: JayUtah on September 06, 2017, 10:02:05 PM
Funny thing is I have found the opposite in the sense that I have found truther's to make fake accounts...

You have no evidence that any number of the regular posters here are sock puppets.  This does not start you out on good footing.

Quote
I have found quite a few people that are believers that just make up stories left and right...

Another claim made with no examples or evidence.

Quote
that go against the transcripts as well as equipment lists provided by NASA and easily found from the NASA site.

You make a lot of references to what you claim NASA has provided, but you supply no documentation for any of it.  Simply saying here and there that "NASA says" does not establish that it is really the case.  And failing to supply specific references prevents anyone from checking up on you to see whether you've quoted properly or put things in the right context.

Quote
Made up stories about SPECIAL battery packs, where as the truth is as explained by NASA of the shelf technology was used where ever possible and batteries were one of the off the shelf items used.

Total nonsense.  Practically all the batteries used in the Apollo program were custom-designed and custom-made.  Why?  Because they had to have specific form factors and specific energy densities.  There were simply no COTS batteries that fit the design specs in each case.  You chastise others for not providing specific references, but you provide no specific references for this or any other claim you make.

Quote
Every truther makes out they know for fact how temperatures work in space and on the Moon...

Yes, I do know for a fact how temperatures work in space.  I'm certified to do so, have done so for nearly 30 years, and am legally liable for errors made in my understanding.  Thermodynamics and heat transfer, I've found, are one of the counterintuitive elements of space engineering that constantly mystify and baffle conspiracy theorists.

Quote
yet NASA states complete opposite views as they seem to have results from experiments done in space and on the Moon showing temperatures.

Vague claims made with no evidence.  Odd that you would cite NASA's experiments done on the Moon apparently in support of claims that they did not go.

Quote
Ask any truther and temperature works like magic in space and on the Moon...

No, nobody is claiming that "temperature" (more properly, heat) works like magic in space.  However, thermodynamics and heat transfer absent an atmosphere work quite differently than conspiracists intuitively believe.  They want to parlay their ignorance into the appropriate standard of proof.  Funny how the more people know about the relevant sciences, the less they are likely to be bothered by hoax theories.

Quote
NASA states below 56C in the shade...

Source?   And you haven't said what attains that temperature in the shade.

Quote
...which would make any Film unusable...

Nope.  ESTAR base from Kodak is good to almost 400 C.  It was made for use in spy satellites.  Now it's commonly available and can be tested by anyone willing to conduct the proper experiment.  Bold move for someone you insinuate has done something physically impossible.

Quote
...but of course Silver Anodising stops anything from getting hot or cold as truthers will say.

No, that is not the claim.  But yes, coatings are an important part of thermal design for objects designed for space.  The only appreciable means by which heat can be transferred to the film magazine is absorption of solar radiation.  Reduce the absorptivity and you reduce the heat load.  That's elementary heat transfer and first-year engineering design.  If you don't know anything about that, that's on you.  Coatings aren't an absolute solution, as you insinuate your critics believe.  But they are an important part of thermal design.

Quote
Leave an item on the Moon in the shade for 8 hours and truthers say no problems it won't get to cold...

That's right.  Why is it so hard to believe that objects can be designed for the environment they're designed to work in?

Quote
...what temperature it does get none of them say...

Sure, because equilibrium temperature in any given situation depends on a number of variables, most of which can't be known precisely enough for any given hypothetical situation.  Something left in the shade will conduct heat to whatever surface it's left on.  To what extent depends on exactly what surface -- the lunar surface, a footpad, a rock?  It will radiate heat to the environment around it.  To what extend depends on whether it's left under something, or next to something, or -- in short -- what the object can "see" around it.  Again, this is first-year heat transfer.  The principles are well known, and if you give a precise set of conditions any competent engineer can give you a first-order estimate of equilibrium temperature.  Not all objects reach the same equilibrium temperature in any given thermal environment.  Laymen have a hard time grasping this.

Quote
NASA states 123C in the Sun on the Moon at the minimum because of the time they landed.

No, quite the contrary.  Landings were done in early lunar morning, with the sun low on the horizon.  The temperature of the lunar surface would have been probably 0-20 C.  The temperature of other objects, such as the back panel of the LM, would have equalized at a different temperature because it's more directly facing the sun and because it's made of different material.  You don't give any reference, and you don't say what exact substance would have achieved this temperature.

Quote
Funny thing is from all scientific sites I could find once the Sun shines on anything in space and on the Moon it doesn't matter what time of day it is as there is no atmosphere for the Sun to go through to lesson it's effects.

The lack of atmosphere eliminates convective heat transfer, which has a significant effect in thermal environments on Earth.  However, the angle at which heat-bearing electromagnetic radiation strikes a surface has a very profound effect on the amount of heat that's transfered. This is basic heat transfer, and it's clear you know essentially zilch about it.

Quote
Any object in direct Sun can reach a temperature of 250C...

No.  Equilibrium temperatures vary according to their material properties.

Quote
...which is what happens and again proof from ISS Astronauts and Shuttle crew explaining the problems they have whilst outside in space with tools getting so hot they need to use insulation wraps or blankets.

Different objects reach different equilibrium temperatures.  Citing examples of some objects that get hot does not substantiate that all objects get that hot.

Quote
Not one of you people look at the video and see them moving in slow motion and have one problem with it...

I don't see them moving in slow motion in the videos.

Quote
...not once do you hear any of them talking as though at any second they could die.

Why would you think that an any moment they could die?  Seems like you're pasting your naive expectations on what people should be doing and saying.  I worked routinely with test pilots, who have a career 25% mortality rate.  Every time they take an airplane do I expect them to talk endlessly about panicking that they could die at any minute?

Quote
First people on the Moon never done before never landed a manned vehicle on the Moon all first time events as none of the equipment they used had ever been tested in a Lunar environment.

Engineers knew a whole lot about the lunar environment before sending astronauts.  Even so, the early missions were tentative, and engineers modified things for later missions based on what they learned from prior missions.  That's what they do.  Certain things can be tested in Earth orbit which, for most intents and purposes, duplicates the lunar environment.  Do you really think people can only do things that have been done before?  People do new things all the time.  What's magical about one of those things being flying in space?

Quote
Yet they went from a less than 60% success rate to a 100% for every manned mission.

You aren't telling us where you're getting these success rates.

Quote
Years later they couldn't get close to this with the Shuttle missions.

Why would you think those two programs are directly comparable, either qualitatively or statistically?

Quote
I am sure I will get a few responses that Believers would never lie or make things up :)

You clearly think very little of people who knowledgeably believe in the Apollo missions, but you're simply spouting the same long-debunked, ignorant nonsense as all your predecessors.  Just because you don't understand how smart people did things doesn't mean they can't have done it.

Since the bulk of your claim deals with heat transfer, read a basic text.  There are several available for free.  Then read chapter 11 of Spacecraft Systems Engineering, the standard text on how to design for space and planetary environments.  The authors and editors don't work for NASA.  I'll be available to answer your questions.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Gardum on September 08, 2017, 06:09:43 PM
I see that if you aren't here sitting patiently to wait for a reply they call you a one poster ?



I only responded my findings to an existing post as to why people haven't responded to his post.



I just bought myself a Jet Ski recently for my 61st birthday and have been enjoying myself as I am retired and like to have a little fun as well.

Seems we aren't allowed to do this if we doubt something as we need to be ready to defend ourselves instantly lol.

I am getting ready to go out again with my friends and Family water Skiing but saw BryanPOopRobsins comment in my email and thought I better respond to it as he gets so upset otherwise and


he and his mate get so exited when they think I have left.


I would have made my own thread for the 100's of links I have gathered over the years that none of you have ever answered with an actual link yourselves all I see is nope your wrong and BS

about SPECIAL Film from Kodak with a melting point of 250C with no links to this of course as Kodak sent our photographic club the stats for the film at the time and it was nothing close.

Unfortunately no Internet back then so was an actual piece of paper on the Kodak letter head, I would say our group leader or Secretary may still have the documents although they were close to

60 at the time and more than likely no longer amongst us.

I lost touch back in the late '80s as Children and mortgages became more important than Hobbies.

We also had a letter from Hasselblad in regards to the photographic equipment and can't use that as proof as I don't have a copy.

Anyway got to get ready people waiting, will put more effort into a response later when I am sore and tired from a day of Jet Skiing, Water Skiing and getting pulled around on an inflatable 3

person Stingray (Oh to make this clear as you people jump onto anything not made clear it's not a real Stingray ok it's a blow up one, have to make sure I dot the T's and cross the I's ;)

Oh and sorry rude of me I thank those that welcomed me as I am glad to be here and look forward to many fruitful discussions, I did try to join years ago but seems they get a lot of spam

request emails so mine got lost in the flood.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Trebor on September 08, 2017, 07:12:44 PM
Unfortunately no Internet back then so was an actual piece of paper on the Kodak letter head,
No doubt this bit of paper also exists nowhere anywhere in the world these days?

We also had a letter from Hasselblad in regards to the photographic equipment and can't use that as proof as I don't have a copy.
That's convenient.
Oh well.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Ranb on September 08, 2017, 09:00:56 PM
I would have made my own thread for the 100's of links I have gathered over the years that none of you have ever answered with an actual link yourselves all I see is nope your wrong and BS
What have I failed to answer?

about SPECIAL Film from Kodak with a melting point of 250C with no links to this of course as Kodak sent our photographic club the stats for the film at the time and it was nothing close.

Unfortunately no Internet back then so was an actual piece of paper on the Kodak letter head, I would say our group leader or Secretary may still have the documents although they were close to

60 at the time and more than likely no longer amongst us.
You have a name for the product other than "special film" so that we may examine the specifications for ourselves?

We also had a letter from Hasselblad in regards to the photographic equipment and can't use that as proof as I don't have a copy.
Does that letter trump other details that Hasselblad has released?

You claimed in your 1st post in part;
Quote
First people on the Moon never done before never landed a manned vehicle on the Moon all first time events as none of the equipment they used had ever been tested in a Lunar environment.
NASA claims to have tested equipment used for the moon landings in a vacuum and the lunar environment prior to the landings.  But you claim they did not.  Any evidence to suggest that these tests were a hoax or did not take place?

Why is something that has happened for the first time suspicious?  Is that the proper default attitude to have for anything that happens for the first time?
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: bknight on September 08, 2017, 09:57:49 PM
...

I would have made my own thread for the 100's of links I have gathered over the years that none of you have ever answered with an actual link yourselves all I see is nope your wrong and BS
I await this extensive list of links you have found, I do hope that they do provide reliable information instead of debunked garbage.
Quote
about SPECIAL Film from Kodak with a melting point of 250C with no links to this of course as Kodak sent our photographic club the stats for the film at the time and it was nothing close.
Perhaps you didn't see JayUtah's post in which he tells you which film was used, not available to the general public in 1969, perhaps you could Google it and learn something.
Quote

Unfortunately no Internet back then so was an actual piece of paper on the Kodak letter head, I would say our group leader or Secretary may still have the documents although they were close to
Did you reference the correct film?  I doubt it because Kodak would not have written a letter indicating the film used for the Apollo mission would not work in the temperatures encountered on the Lunar EVA's.
Quote

60 at the time and more than likely no longer amongst us.

I lost touch back in the late '80s as Children and mortgages became more important than Hobbies.

We also had a letter from Hasselblad in regards to the photographic equipment and can't use that as proof as I don't have a copy.
  Same goes for Hasseblad, did they indicate the camera wouldn't work on the Lunar surface?  I doubt that also, assuming you asked about the correct model.
Quote

Anyway got to get ready people waiting, will put more effort into a response later when I am sore and tired from a day of Jet Skiing, Water Skiing and getting pulled around on an inflatable 3

person Stingray (Oh to make this clear as you people jump onto anything not made clear it's not a real Stingray ok it's a blow up one, have to make sure I dot the T's and cross the I's ;)

Oh and sorry rude of me I thank those that welcomed me as I am glad to be here and look forward to many fruitful discussions, I did try to join years ago but seems they get a lot of spam

request emails so mine got lost in the flood.

You seem to be very busy I hope you do use the spare time to do some fundamental research before posting nonsense.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Geordie on September 08, 2017, 10:17:34 PM
I see that if you aren't here sitting patiently to wait for a reply they call you a one poster ?



I only responded my findings to an existing post as to why people haven't responded to his post.



I just bought myself a Jet Ski recently for my 61st birthday and have been enjoying myself as I am retired and like to have a little fun as well.

Seems we aren't allowed to do this if we doubt something as we need to be ready to defend ourselves instantly lol.

I am getting ready to go out again with my friends and Family water Skiing but saw BryanPOopRobsins comment in my email and thought I better respond to it as he gets so upset otherwise and


he and his mate get so exited when they think I have left.


I would have made my own thread for the 100's of links I have gathered over the years that none of you have ever answered with an actual link yourselves all I see is nope your wrong and BS

about SPECIAL Film from Kodak with a melting point of 250C with no links to this of course as Kodak sent our photographic club the stats for the film at the time and it was nothing close.

Unfortunately no Internet back then so was an actual piece of paper on the Kodak letter head, I would say our group leader or Secretary may still have the documents although they were close to

60 at the time and more than likely no longer amongst us.

I lost touch back in the late '80s as Children and mortgages became more important than Hobbies.

We also had a letter from Hasselblad in regards to the photographic equipment and can't use that as proof as I don't have a copy.

Anyway got to get ready people waiting, will put more effort into a response later when I am sore and tired from a day of Jet Skiing, Water Skiing and getting pulled around on an inflatable 3

person Stingray (Oh to make this clear as you people jump onto anything not made clear it's not a real Stingray ok it's a blow up one, have to make sure I dot the T's and cross the I's ;)

Oh and sorry rude of me I thank those that welcomed me as I am glad to be here and look forward to many fruitful discussions, I did try to join years ago but seems they get a lot of spam

request emails so mine got lost in the flood.

61? More like eleven. What's up with the silly linebreaks? And BryanPOopRobsins. Seriously?
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: smartcooky on September 08, 2017, 11:43:25 PM
61? More like eleven. What's up with the silly linebreaks? And BryanPOopRobsins. Seriously?

There's no way he's 61 and posts in such an immature fashion.... well, there is a way, but I'm not saying because psychiatry is not my area of expertise.

Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: smartcooky on September 09, 2017, 12:13:19 AM
I await this extensive list of links you have found, I do hope that they do provide reliable information instead of debunked garbage.
So do I.... but I won't be holding my breath

Perhaps you didn't see JayUtah's post in which he tells you which film was used, not available to the general public in 1969, perhaps you could Google it and learn something.
Regardless, its irrelevant anyway because while the film was a special, the need to survive 250°C temperatures was not one of its special attributes, for the simple reason that inside of the film magazines would never have reached those sorts of temperatures... another total thermodynamics fail from Gardum. Here is a primer on why this is so, from Jay's excellent Clavius site http://www.clavius.org/envheat.html

The only source of heat would have been conductive heat transfer through the camera body, and only at the points where the film physically touched the body or a connected part. Rolled up on its spool inside the magazine it was relatively safe from conducted heat. Hasselblad gave the lunar surface cameras a shiny polished metal finish to reduce the amount of light they would absorb

Same goes for Hasseblad, did they indicate the camera wouldn't work on the Lunar surface?  I doubt that also, assuming you asked about the correct model.
Gardum's Hasselblad letter claim is just a flat out, bare faced lie. Why would Hasselblad trumpet the success of their specially modified 500EL cameras used in the Apollo Missions (http://www.hasselblad.com/inspiration/our-story/hasselblad-in-space) and then turn around and write a letter to some obscure Neville Nobody stating that they wouldn't have worked on the Lunar Surface. I call BS on his claimed letter, right now!

You seem to be very busy I hope you do use the spare time to do some fundamental research before posting nonsense.
I wonder why I think that is NOT going to happen
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Gardum on September 09, 2017, 02:06:38 AM
People here seem to pick on not enough line breaks then to many where is the Goldilocks faq so that I get it just right ?

Ok one simple as short as I can as I do go on at times, we will do it scientifically ok ?

Any scientists here or just children that pick on line breaks or grammar ?

Now in science we have a very simple set of steps with anything some one claims, step one is it repeatable by others ?

Now LEO repeatable by many Nations and Companies there fore possible and scientifically proven as fact.

Unmanned vehicles to the Moon again repeatable done by many Nations and therefore proven a fact.

Photography in space with out an enclosure with part atmosphere and heating plate only done by NASA no other Nation has done this with a mechanical camera and Film Frizzbizz Fromage had placed a Link from the Soviets Photographic attempts on the Moon and when you read the article it explains quite clearly enclosure part Atmosphere and heating plate.

All Military and NASA photography before the Apollo missions during and after all had enclosures with part Atmosphere and heating plate, any one with any photographic experience with the Air force or any other department would know this.

I am a little tired from my day out Jet Skiing and why you people doubt my age I have no clue ? I will get my Wife to take a couple pictures next week end to prove and you can see my photo on the YouTube videos as I use my real name and photo there this site wanted a username so used my old Asherons Call name :)

From the responses I see I get the impression most of you are more the Children and whining little suckers at that, we aren't at school any more so please try and grow up or don't bother responding if all you can do is petty age games.

1956 is my Birth year and if required I will put a copy of my Birth cert lol.

Also as I said with my previous response that I can't use the letter Kodak sent us nor Hasselblad as they may be out there some where but if the people that inherited their parents or grand parents things were anything like my Brother in Laws it would all be in the garbage or sold.  I am sure many other Photographic groups of the time were also interested and I am sure some one out there may have the originals.

I don't class equipment as Special that is the believers realm and also NASA says this as well on a few things.

I will put a little more effort into my next post after the garbage responses of people jumping up and down that I didn't do the right line breaks or something else a waste of time.

Lets try for some scientific responses please and fault my logic for scientific practice in real life as they can't repeat the experiment now themselves and probably won't till 2025 from all the articles I am reading.

Also Smartcooky not full of yourself are you lol even if you do say so yourself ?

Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: smartcooky on September 09, 2017, 02:22:51 AM
People here seem to pick on not enough line breaks then to many where is the Goldilocks faq so that I get it just right ?<snip>

Four words

Where
Is
your
evidence

????
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Trebor on September 09, 2017, 03:08:27 AM
...
Ok one simple as short as I can as I do go on at times, we will do it scientifically ok ?
Doing things 'scientifically' requires providing sources. Something you have failed at already.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on September 09, 2017, 03:22:47 AM
I'm afraid old Gollum, sorry I meant Gardum, (bryanpooprobsin? Really ;D ) even when he does provide links doesn't seem to understand them. He constantly rants on that anything in a vacuum and shade is instantly at just over absolute zero and links to a NASA document that says nothing of the sort.
He also likes to think that the Hassleblads were stored externally again pointing to a NASA loadout schedule that clearly states that the only externally stored camera was the TV camera in the MESA. That not withstanding several images were taken with "both" LM cameras before they opened the hatch. In typical hoax fashion he dismisses this evidence as NASA not getting its story straight. Not that storing the cameras externally would matter, as highlighted by the use of the mapping camera, even the film for that had to be recovered by a space walk.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Zakalwe on September 09, 2017, 05:33:24 AM
Irrelevant gish-gallop snipped

You seem to labour under the confusion that verbosity equals competence in a subject. ::)

Please let me try to help you. Can you post up the single, most compelling part that has convinced you that the Apollo program did not happen as described in the archives? We can then address a single point rather than having you follow a scatter-gun approach.


If you can't manage that, then perhaps go back to some of the responses that you've already received. For example, you claimed that the equipment was not tested in the Lunar environment. That claim has been shown to be incorrect. Can you address this and either ask for further clarification or concede that your point was incorrect?

Finally, it would be very helpful if you could frame your responses without the childish name-calling and silly words (Film Fizzbag Fromage???). You are not 6, we are not 6 and this isn't a kindergarten playground. If you want to be treated seriously and as a responsible adult then please do everyone the kindness of acting seriously and as a responsible adult. If you can't, then you are probably better returning to YouTube comments where you will find an audience more suitable to your approach.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: smartcooky on September 09, 2017, 08:20:58 AM
Frankly, I would settle for him posting in a comprehensible manner because most of the time, I can't understand what he has written.

Once he's done that he can leave out all the irrelevant stuff. No one here is interested in his day jet-skiing, waterskiing or his adventures on a sea biscuit.

And yes, Gardum, you WILL be expected to dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s. That is how evidentiary debates work. Hoax Believers thrive on innuendo, vague unsubstantiated claims, and indefinite unsupported assertions - details are very important; its the details that Hoax Believers hate, because they have no argument against them.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: bknight on September 09, 2017, 09:08:54 AM
SNIP
Post number three and still no links to image analysis, just vague allegations that can't be properly addressed.
Gardum, other than your daily activities, which we aren't really impressive with or don't care about what have you got for us concerning images taken by the Apollo astronauts on the moon?
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Apollo 957 on September 09, 2017, 09:16:02 AM
Dealing with the claim of extreme and unmanageable temperatures;

The Lunar Sourcebook cites the surface temp of the Moon as -233°C to 123°C. If you, Gardum, disagree with these extremes, please cite your source and tell us how you measured them.

There's only one heat source; the Sun. The temp of the surface, assuming an open location, not in a crater's shadow, or such, reaches its peak in the middle of the lunar day, and descends to its lowest point during lunar night.

Recognise that this is a cycle of 28 Earth days, so for any one point on the surface, 14 days of sunlight, 14 days of dark. Once the temp has reached its low during the night, it can ONLY start to heat up at lunar dawn, when the sunlight hits it. Lunar noon is seven days later, so the increase of temp of the surface over those seven days is (233 + 123 =) 356 degrees. That's a temp rise of (356/7 =) 50 degrees per day, or approx 2 degrees per hour.

Objects will vary, but this gives an approximation of how quickly something will heat up in open sunlight on the Moon.

Take a Hasselblad camera out on an EVA of 4 hours, and this would suggest that, if it had the same reflectivity as the lunar surface, it's outer casing would heat up by 8 degrees. In fact, it was designed to be more reflective, and hence it would accept less heat than this.

 
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: onebigmonkey on September 09, 2017, 09:29:18 AM
Any scientists here or just children that pick on line breaks or grammar ?

Correct use of the English language helps people understand what you're talking about. Your use of it so far makes that difficult. It's also a good indicator of your level of education. So far it's not looking good.

Quote
Photography in space with out an enclosure with part atmosphere and heating plate only done by NASA no other Nation has done this with a mechanical camera and Film Frizzbizz Fromage had placed a Link from the Soviets Photographic attempts on the Moon and when you read the article it explains quite clearly enclosure part Atmosphere and heating plate.

So which is it - only NASA use the method you describe or NASA and also the Soviets? Quote us the relevant bits so we can see exactly what you mean.

Quote
All Military and NASA photography before the Apollo missions during and after all had enclosures with part Atmosphere and heating plate, any one with any photographic experience with the Air force or any other department would know this.

All of them? Every photograph taken in space? Sure about that?

Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Abaddon on September 09, 2017, 12:06:58 PM
People here seem to pick on not enough line breaks then to many where is the Goldilocks faq so that I get it just right ?
Of course. Your style of wall-o-text makes your posts incomprehensible. For example...

Ok one simple as short as I can as I do go on at times, we will do it scientifically ok ?
Your very next sentence does not qualify as english.

Any scientists here or just children that pick on line breaks or grammar ?
Lots. Your point is?

Now in science we have a very simple set of steps with anything some one claims, step one is it repeatable by others ?
That is not step one in the scientific method.

Now LEO repeatable by many Nations and Companies there fore possible and scientifically proven as fact.

Unmanned vehicles to the Moon again repeatable done by many Nations and therefore proven a fact.
So what?

Photography in space with out an enclosure with part atmosphere and heating plate only done by NASA no other Nation has done this with a mechanical camera and Film Frizzbizz Fromage had placed a Link from the Soviets Photographic attempts on the Moon and when you read the article it explains quite clearly enclosure part Atmosphere and heating plate.
Incoherent. Is english not your first language?

All Military and NASA photography before the Apollo missions during and after all had enclosures with part Atmosphere and heating plate, any one with any photographic experience with the Air force or any other department would know this.
Um...the Apollo cameras had enclosures.

I am a little tired from my day out Jet Skiing and why you people doubt my age I have no clue ?
Well, you write like an entitled teen. Don't like that? Well then don't write in that incoherent way.

I will get my Wife to take a couple pictures next week end to prove and you can see my photo on the YouTube videos as I use my real name and photo there this site wanted a username so used my old Asherons Call name :)
You don't need to prove that you are on youtube. We know you are on youtube. Nobody cares.

From the responses I see I get the impression most of you are more the Children and whining little suckers at that, we aren't at school any more so please try and grow up or don't bother responding if all you can do is petty age games.
Strange, given that you are unable to construct simple sentences.

1956 is my Birth year and if required I will put a copy of my Birth cert lol.
I don't care. Pony up with the evidence for your claims.

Also as I said with my previous response that I can't use the letter Kodak sent us nor Hasselblad as they may be out there some where but if the people that inherited their parents or grand parents things were anything like my Brother in Laws it would all be in the garbage or sold.  I am sure many other Photographic groups of the time were also interested and I am sure some one out there may have the originals.
So you have nothing.

I don't class equipment as Special that is the believers realm and also NASA says this as well on a few things.
"Special". Right.

I will put a little more effort into my next post after the garbage responses of people jumping up and down that I didn't do the right line breaks or something else a waste of time.
Please do. If you are incoherent nobody will give you the time of day.

Lets try for some scientific responses please and fault my logic for scientific practice in real life as they can't repeat the experiment now themselves and probably won't till 2025 from all the articles I am reading.
so you believe Concord and supersonic trans-atlantic passenger travel are a hoax, right? Nobody can repeat that today, right?

Also Smartcooky not full of yourself are you lol even if you do say so yourself ?
Hurling insult, the inevitable bastion of the factually bereft.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: JayUtah on September 09, 2017, 12:13:02 PM
[Omitting the rambling rant about punctuality and jet skis.]
I would have made my own thread for the 100's of links I have gathered over the years that none of you have ever answered...

I have an entire web site full of answers.  I also made a number of television appearances, as well as interviews for such publications as The New York Times Magazine, Metropole, Science (the scientific journal), and Newsweek.  If you're trying to argue that the hoax claims have not been sufficiently addressed, I think you'll find the facts are against you.  We do often find here that critics have done very little if any research to determine whether their claims have sound answers.

Quote
...with an actual link yourselves

"Links" are not the sine qua non of knowledge.  I've been a professional aerospace engineer for nearly 30 years and a paid photographer for longer.  I know this stuff by heart because I went and learned it and practiced it professionally.  I didn't just Google around until I felt satisfied.  When I answer you from a position of knowledge and expertise, there is no "link" possible to it.  I did, however, give you a reference to one of the standard works on spacecraft design, whose chapter on thermal design and verification fairly answers most of your questions in your post.  My guess is that you haven't availed yourself of it.  This isn't YouTube.  Apollo took place in the real world, and you'll be expected to come up to real-world standards in documenting and defending your claims.

Quote
...all I see is nope your wrong and BS

Well, you are wrong.  You are nearly completely ignorant on the subject of heat transfer.  You are simply repeating the same layman's errors all the other hoax claimants have, as if you believed no one could possibly be an expert on this and no one could possibly see through your bluff.

Further, while you claimed you had copious documentation and references from official sources, you didn't supply a single one of them.  If someone merely claims he is well supported by evidence but provides none of the evidence, there is little for a critic to do.  Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Quote
about SPECIAL Film from Kodak with a melting point of 250C with no links to this of course as Kodak sent our photographic club the stats for the film at the time and it was nothing close.

If I do a search for "kodak estar melting point," this official data sheet is the first returned item.  It lists the melting point as 255 C.
https://www.kodak.com/KodakGCG/uploadedFiles/Corporate/Industrial_Materials_Group/ti2598.pdf

Quote
Unfortunately no Internet back then so was an actual piece of paper on the Kodak letter head, I would say our group leader or Secretary may still have the documents...

Excuses, excuses.

Quote
We also had a letter from Hasselblad in regards to the photographic equipment and can't use that as proof as I don't have a copy.

Excuses, excuses.

Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: JayUtah on September 09, 2017, 12:25:52 PM
Any scientists here...

Yes, and I addressed the scientific errors in your claim without any response from you.  You seem to be more interested in rambling descriptions of your recreational activities and complaints about your critics.

Quote
Photography in space with out an enclosure with part atmosphere and heating plate only done by NASA...

Are you quite sure about that?

Quote
Also as I said with my previous response that I can't use the letter Kodak sent us nor Hasselblad as they may be out there some where...

Your critics are not obliged to address evidence you cannot provide, especially when it contradicts other evidence that does exist.

Quote
Lets try for some scientific responses please...

I referred you to the standard work in the field for spacecraft design, which corrects a number of your mistaken impressions.  Have you read it, or any portion of it?  I see a fair amount of bluster from you, but no attempt whatever to engage the scientific explanations you were given.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: gwiz on September 09, 2017, 12:45:51 PM
All Military and NASA photography before the Apollo missions during and after all had enclosures with part Atmosphere and heating plate, any one with any photographic experience with the Air force or any other department would know this.
Suggest you research the Corona reconnaissance satellite, first launched in 1959, first successful mission August 1960.  This had a film camera working in vacuum.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: JayUtah on September 09, 2017, 01:05:11 PM
Frankly, I would settle for him posting in a comprehensible manner because most of the time, I can't understand what he has written.

I have to agree.  There are the side issues of writing skill as a proxy for level of education, etc., but it's simply essential in these debates to be able to express one's claims clearly and as dispassionately as the heat of the argument allows.  Without clarity, critics can end up responding by mistake to points that aren't actually being made, leading the proponent to be able credibly to claim straw-man tactics.  If any rejoinder is going to be made on the basis of "I never said that," then the claims need to be clear enough that mistaken interpretation isn't the best explanation.

Quote
Once he's done that he can leave out all the irrelevant stuff. No one here is interested in his day jet-skiing, waterskiing or his adventures on a sea biscuit.

Agreed.  It's quite disingenuous for him to claim all the responses to him have been irrelevant when he insists on burying any substantial points he's trying to make in long rambling diary entries.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: JayUtah on September 09, 2017, 01:12:35 PM
This had a film camera working in vacuum.

Which is why the Estar base was made.  Kodak was tasked with creating a film that would work in a vacuum precisely because that was the requirement.  Originally it was thought that film used for high-altitude aerial photography would be sufficient, but it proved not to be.  Initially there was a problem with electrostatic discharge, which is a problem only in a vacuum.  The methods of grounding the gate etc. for Corona were reused in the Apollo Hasselblad.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: LunarOrbit on September 09, 2017, 03:41:21 PM


61? More like eleven. What's up with the silly linebreaks?
There's no way he's 61 and posts in such an immature fashion....

Have you seen the way President (hurp) Trump tweets? He's in his 70s. ;)

Sent from my SM-N920W8 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: smartcooky on September 09, 2017, 04:32:32 PM


61? More like eleven. What's up with the silly linebreaks?
There's no way he's 61 and posts in such an immature fashion....

Have you seen the way President (hurp) Trump tweets? He's in his 70s. ;)

Sent from my SM-N920W8 using Tapatalk


Yup. Fair point. I take it back!
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Obviousman on September 09, 2017, 05:25:53 PM
We also had a letter from Hasselblad in regards to the photographic equipment and can't use that as proof as I don't have a copy.

Well, some people did contact Hasselblad and here are some of the replies:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/9214-debunking-duane/?do=findComment&comment=92114

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/5911-jack-whites-aulis-apollo-hoax-investigation-a-rebuttal/?do=findComment&comment=54993

Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: nomuse on September 09, 2017, 06:16:42 PM
People here seem to pick on not enough line breaks then to many where is the Goldilocks faq so that I get it just right ?

You miss the point, and in doing so illustrate perfectly the way in which you are missing it.

You wouldn't attempt a calculation while using whatever random operations were closest to hand. You wouldn't attempt to write a computer program using random punctuation and whitespace. So why would you try to present an argument in discussion without trying to write in a clear way using generally agreed-upon rules?

And yet this is only half of it. If you were to attempt a calculation but had no idea whether you needed to multiply or divide in any particular step, then you'd get the wrong results. If you attempted to write a computer program but had no clear idea about which things needed to be assigned, compared, converted to strings, or otherwise processed -- that is, no idea of what the logic and purpose of each line was -- it would never work.

If you can not say it clearly, the most likely reason is that your thoughts are not clear. You fumble your way forwards with rambling sentences and no organization because the thoughts are rambling and disorganized.

And that's why few here want to respond to you.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: gillianren on September 09, 2017, 06:42:04 PM
Seriously, too, being cognizant of spelling and grammatical errors isn't evidence of immaturity.  Proofreading is a technical skill, one for which I've been paid.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: smartcooky on September 09, 2017, 07:11:07 PM
Seriously, too, being cognizant of spelling and grammatical errors isn't evidence of immaturity.  Proofreading is a technical skill, one for which I've been paid.

Nonetheless, if Gardum expects a clear and honest debate then I would at least expect his prose to meet the minimum standards of someone who has learned Elementary School Communications English. His postings so far haven't even come close to that.

When I spoke earlier about dotting the "i"s and crossing the "t"s I wasn't speaking  about grammar I was speaking metaphorically. If Gardum wishes to make claims, then those claims must be accompanied by detail and evidence, otherwise they will be summarily dismissed. 
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Zakalwe on September 11, 2017, 07:16:30 AM
Seriously, too, being cognizant of spelling and grammatical errors isn't evidence of immaturity.  Proofreading is a technical skill, one for which I've been paid.

No, but it is an indication of education and ability. We aren't talking about proofreading, we are talking about being able to frame a point clearly. If an interlocutor cannot frame a question in a coherent manner then its an indication of their knowledge on the subject.
Gardum hasn't managed to pose a decent question. What he's done is burst in and rattled off a load of nonsense in broken, semi-intelligible English, mixed in a load of childish insults and then waffled on about his hobbies. That, for me, is a very clear indication of the type of person that we are dealing with. We are not talking about someone that has misspelt a word or two, after all.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: gillianren on September 11, 2017, 11:45:41 AM
Gardum accused people of being childish for noticing his errors.  My point is that it is hardly childish to have such a skill.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Zakalwe on September 11, 2017, 12:28:43 PM
Gardum accused people of being childish for noticing his errors.  My point is that it is hardly childish to have such a skill.

Ahh..I'm with you now. I misunderstood the point that you were making. Mea culpa.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Geordie on September 11, 2017, 11:03:04 PM
People here seem to pick on not enough line breaks then to many where is the Goldilocks faq so that I get it just right ?

You miss the point, and in doing so illustrate perfectly the way in which you are missing it.

You wouldn't attempt a calculation while using whatever random operations were closest to hand. You wouldn't attempt to write a computer program using random punctuation and whitespace. So why would you try to present an argument in discussion without trying to write in a clear way using generally agreed-upon rules?

And yet this is only half of it. If you were to attempt a calculation but had no idea whether you needed to multiply or divide in any particular step, then you'd get the wrong results. If you attempted to write a computer program but had no clear idea about which things needed to be assigned, compared, converted to strings, or otherwise processed -- that is, no idea of what the logic and purpose of each line was -- it would never work.

If you can not say it clearly, the most likely reason is that your thoughts are not clear. You fumble your way forwards with rambling sentences and no organization because the thoughts are rambling and disorganized.

And that's why few here want to respond to you.

I think he's unused to people taking him seriously enough to read what he writes, if writing is the word for what he has posted here. That first post was simply unreadable. How one can attain the age of 61 without learning basic writing and other communication skills (e.g. white space, truthfulness, and politesse) is beyond me.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: ineluki on September 12, 2017, 05:07:48 AM
I see that if you aren't here sitting patiently to wait for a reply they call you a one poster ?

Oh please, not another whiner...

You came here to overthrow accepted history, you should have your evidence ready, and you should be eager to deliver it.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: sandopan on September 12, 2017, 08:55:47 AM
Gardum accused people of being childish for noticing his errors.

If that's true, I can't find it in any of the three posts s/he has made.

Can you point out where this accusation is to be found?
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Mag40 on September 12, 2017, 09:36:43 AM
Gardum accused people of being childish for noticing his errors.

If that's true, I can't find it in any of the three posts s/he has made.

Can you point out where this accusation is to be found?

Any scientists here or just children that pick on line breaks or grammar ?

From the responses I see I get the impression most of you are more the Children and whining little suckers at that, we aren't at school any more so please try and grow up or don't bother responding if all you can do is petty age games.

Not sure how you failed to see these.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: sandopan on September 12, 2017, 10:14:17 AM
Not sure how you failed to see these.

I did not fail to see these quotes.

Perhaps you have misunderstood me.  I am looking for where "Gardum accused people of being childish for noticing his errors".  I am not looking for places where s/he does not make such an accusation.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: gillianren on September 12, 2017, 11:49:59 AM
You don't see that "children that pick on line breaks or grammar" is saying you're childish for noticing?  Okay.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: sandopan on September 12, 2017, 12:00:02 PM
You don't see that "children that pick on line breaks or grammar" is saying you're childish for noticing?  Okay.

So that makes at least two people at this board who seem to be incapable of distinguishing between noticing something and picking on someone for something, and one of them claims to have worked as a proofreader.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Zakalwe on September 12, 2017, 01:04:46 PM
You don't see that "children that pick on line breaks or grammar" is saying you're childish for noticing?  Okay.

So that makes at least two people at this board who seem to be incapable of distinguishing between noticing something and picking on someone for something, and one of them claims to have worked as a proofreader.

I guess that you are getting into semantics a bit. "Picking on" generally means criticizing or punishing someone repeatedly. Gardum has made three posts (all of which contain insults to the members of this board, by the way), so he can't really be accused of picking on someone. However, it is Gardum that is complaining of being picked on.  Gillianren has already quoted the line, so there's no point in re-quoting it.

To be honest, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here?
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Geordie on September 12, 2017, 01:11:26 PM
You don't see that "children that pick on line breaks or grammar" is saying you're childish for noticing?  Okay.

So that makes at least two people at this board who seem to be incapable of distinguishing between noticing something and picking on someone for something, and one of them claims to have worked as a proofreader.
You're splitting a very fine hair. What's the point? He very clearly is stating that everyone who has posted in response to him is either (a) a scientist, or (b) a child. And he's not sure that there are any scientists here, which leaves, in his analysis, only children.

He's not "noticing" that posters here are children; they are not children. He is picking on them, if I may borrow the phrase.

But that's not all--more rudeness:
Quote from: Gardum
[...] getting pulled around on an inflatable 3 person Stingray (Oh to make this clear as you people jump onto anything not made clear it's not a real Stingray ok it's a blow up one, have to make sure I dot the T's and cross the I's ;)

All of "you people"(myself included) can't tell the difference between an inflatable 3 person stingray and a real stingray.

That's an insult, or "picking on", whatever you want to call it.

And it goes on:
Quote from: Gardum
I get the impression most of you are more the Children and whining little suckers at that [...]

And on (this one is incoherent--except for the insult at the beginning):
Quote from: Gardum
Lets try for some scientific responses please and fault my logic for scientific practice in real life as they can't repeat the experiment now themselves and probably won't till 2025 from all the articles I am reading.

[minorly edited]

Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Abaddon on September 12, 2017, 01:53:27 PM
Wow.

Everyone is falling head over heels for Gardum's obvious gambit.

I think we as a group are just a smidgin better than that.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: sandopan on September 12, 2017, 02:20:01 PM
I guess that you are getting into semantics a bit.

I've never heard of any semantics in which "to notice" and "to pick on" mean the same thing.

"Picking on" generally means criticizing or punishing someone repeatedly.

If that's the definition, then Gardum was picked on.  Whether this picking is justified or not, reasonable or not, childish or not - those are different questions.

However, it is Gardum that is complaining of being picked on.

Yes, that is correct.

Gillianren has already quoted the line, so there's no point in re-quoting it.

As of the time that I am writing, Gillianren has not quoted anything from anyone in this thread.  Subsequent to Gardum's complaint of being picked on, Gillianren made a statement about "being cognizant", which is irrelevant to Gardum's complaint.  She subsequently made the post that I quoted, in which she made the false statement "Gardum accused people of being childish for noticing his errors."

To be honest, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here?

There is no deep hidden meaning to my posts here.  The statement that "Gardum accused people of being childish for noticing his errors." is false.  I posted a question, rather than a statement, in case I missed something somewhere.  Two posters responded with Gardum's complaint of being picked on, apparently being completely unaware of the obvious difference between his actual statement and Gillianren's false characterisation of it, even with it staring them in the face.

So I highlighted a false statement, and pointed it out that it is false.  I am astounded how controversial this appears to be.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: sandopan on September 12, 2017, 02:23:53 PM
You're splitting a very fine hair.

In my opinion, the hair that divides statements that are true from statements that are false, is very coarse, not very fine.

What's the point?

My point is incredibly simple.  Someone posted a statement, "Gardum accused people of being childish for noticing his errors", that is false; I pointed out that it is false.

He very clearly is stating that everyone who has posted in response to him is either (a) a scientist, or (b) a child. And he's not sure that there are any scientists here, which leaves, in his analysis, only children.

He's not "noticing" that posters here are children; they are not children. He is picking on them, if I may borrow the phrase.

But that's not all--more rudeness:
Quote from: Gardum
[...] getting pulled around on an inflatable 3 person Stingray (Oh to make this clear as you people jump onto anything not made clear it's not a real Stingray ok it's a blow up one, have to make sure I dot the T's and cross the I's ;)

All of "you people"(myself included) can't tell the difference between an inflatable 3 person stingray and a real stingray.

That's an insult, or "picking on", whatever you want to call it.

And it goes on:
Quote from: Gardum
I get the impression most of you are more the Children and whining little suckers at that [...]

And on (this one is incoherent--except for the insult at the beginning):
Quote from: Gardum
Lets try for some scientific responses please and fault my logic for scientific practice in real life as they can't repeat the experiment now themselves and probably won't till 2025 from all the articles I am reading.

[minorly edited]

As none of this has anything to do in the slightest with the truth or falsehood of the statement "Gardum accused people of being childish for noticing his errors", whatever point you are trying to make appears to be completely unrelated to my point.

If my pointing out the falsehood of Gillianren's statement is somehow distracting everyone from the collective goal of arguing with Gardum, then I would suggest a) not making statements that are false, and b) if someone violates a), then don't get one's knickers in a twist when someone else points out that a) has been violated.  Recognise the misstatement, and move on.

Good grief, this is allegedly a debunking site.  What do you expect someone to do when there are false statements made?  Just ignore them, because they're made about someone peddling bunk?


Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: sts60 on September 12, 2017, 02:28:31 PM
Hi, Gardum, welcome to the board.

Will you address your errors of fact, such as asserting the Shuttle mission success rate was "nowhere near" 100%, or claiming that the equipment hadn't been tested in a Lunar environment?  (I've personally performed spacecraft testing in Chamber B at JSC, where decades earlier Lunar Module environmental testing was done.)

Clearing up such elementary mistakes would be a good start, then we can talk about heat transfer.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: jfb on September 12, 2017, 03:24:48 PM
Hello,

I couldn't post before hand as my account had never been authorised so I am here as a noob and first time poster.

Speaking as a relative n00b myself, wilkommen, bienvenue, c'mon in...

Quote
Funny thing is I have found the opposite in the sense that I have found truther's to make fake accounts to make out as though there are more believers or promoting the same so called evidence or confirmation.

For example?  Which accounts do you believe are sockpuppets?  How would you prove it? 

Quote
I have found quite a few people that are believers that just make up stories left and right that go against the transcripts as well as equipment lists provided by NASA and easily found from the NASA site.

On this site?  Who are not themselves conspiracy theorists?

Quote
I also see a lot of SPECIAL being flouted by believers with no link to what the SPECIAL is.
Made up stories about SPECIAL battery packs, where as the truth is as explained by NASA of the shelf technology was used where ever possible and batteries were one of the off the shelf items used.

And you have links or copies of documentation for this assertion?  I can't think of much OTS tech used in the Apollo program - it was almost all custom built.  The tooling to build that custom equipment was custom built, that's part of why the program cost so damned much.

Quote
Every truther makes out they know for fact how temperatures work in space and on the Moon, yet NASA states complete opposite views as they seem to have results from experiments done in space and on the Moon showing temperatures.

Remember that "temperature" and "heat" are not the same thing.  You can stick your hand in a 100C oven for several seconds and nothing bad will happen; your hand will get warm, but not much more than that.  Stick your hand in a 100C pot of water and you'll be severely burned.  There's more heat in the pot of water than in the oven, even though they have the same temperature.  The concept of "temperature" doesn't really apply to a vacuum, but "heat" does (technically, "heat" is the flow of thermal energy from a hotter to cooler system).

Yes, any object on the lunar surface (or in orbit) will have a temperature - during the lunar "day" it's absorbing heat radiated from the Sun and warming up, while during a lunar "night" it's radiating that heat back out to space and cooling down.  In a vacuum, you don't have conduction to move heat around, so things will heat up and cool down more slowly than they would in air or water. 
Quote

Ask any truther and temperature works like magic in space and on the Moon,


More like, it works the way we expect it to work anywhere else; you just don't have convection to move heat around as effectively as you would on Earth.

Quote
NASA states below 56C in the shade which would make any Film unusable but of course Silver Anodising stops anything from getting hot or cold as truthers will say.

So much garbled information in such few words.

The film used on the Moon was designed for use in a vacuum with extremes of temperature.  Instead of using the usual acetate base (which would have warped), it used a polyester base that could tolerate wide temperature swings. 

Storing the film in highly reflective magazines reduced the amount of heat that the film was exposed to.  Again, in a vacuum, you don't have convection moving things around.  As the rolls were kept in protective magazines (which themselves weren't constantly exposed to the Sun), they didn't get anywhere near as hot as anything left out on the surface.     

Quote
Leave an item on the Moon in the shade for 8 hours and truthers say no problems it won't get to cold, what temperature it does get none of them say but it's not bad as otherwise it would go against the possibility of certain things being possible.

In a vacuum, the only ways for an object to cool off are through radiation and conduction via the surface it's on.  That's slower than if you have convection working for you.  The exact rates of cooling will depend on the material, the surface area, its starting temperature, etc.  Shiny objects will cool off more slowly than black objects, stuff with lots of surface area to volume will cool off more quickly than cubes or spheres, etc. 

Quote
NASA states 123C in the Sun on the Moon at the minimum because of the time they landed.
Funny thing is from all scientific sites I could find once the Sun shines on anything in space and on the Moon it doesn't matter what time of day it is as there is no atmosphere for the Sun to go through to lesson it's effects.

The angle of the Sun relative to the surface absolutely makes a difference.  Morning is cooler than midday which is warmer than evening.  The Apollo missions landed in the lunar "morning". 

Quote
Any object in direct Sun can reach a temperature of 250C which is what happens and again proof from ISS
Astronauts and Shuttle crew explaining the problems they have whilst outside in space with tools getting so hot they need to use insulation wraps or blankets.

Yup. Insulation, wraps, reflectors, shades, active cooling, etc.  All of which were used on Apollo.

Quote
This was easily found by a couple Google checks from NASA missions from the ISS and Shuttle Crew.
Yet when it comes to the Moon it's all SPECIAL no metal objects get to hot or too cold, must have been the Goldilocks time of day on the Moon each time.

Or, more likely, the equipment was designed to account for those temperature extremes.

Quote
Not one of you people look at the video and see them moving in slow motion and have one problem with it, all you get is well they wouldn't move fast as the ground has sharp rocks and they could cut their suit or something similar, yet truth shows them falling let right and centre doing weird movements to get back up, not once do you hear any of them talking as though at any second they could die.

1/6th gravity means you don't hit the ground as hard.  And the suits were pretty robust (had to be). 

Quote
First people on the Moon never done before never landed a manned vehicle on the Moon all first time events as none of the equipment they used had ever been tested in a Lunar environment.

First, that's not true.  Apollo 9 and 10 were flown to shake out the LM both in Earth and Lunar orbit.  By the time Neil and Buzz flew the Eagle, its performance characteristics in a lunar environment were pretty well known.

Secondly, they simulated the hell of out landing, both in ground simulators and the LLRV.  The wonderful thing about physics is that it works the same no matter where you are, and you can predict how things will perform ahead of time. 

Apollo 11 wasn't the first thing we landed on the Moon, either; a number of unmanned probes preceded it and helped characterize the lunar surface environment.  They weren't flying blind.  They knew (largely) what to expect (the boulder field that Neil had to fly past was a bit of a surprise). 

Quote
Yet they went from a less than 60% success rate to a 100% for every man1ned mission.

Apollo 13 was a loss of mission (LOM) - they didn't land on the Moon.  They managed not to lose the crew (LOC) or the vehicle (LOV), but it was a failed mission, putting the success rate at 8/9, or about 88%.  If we count Apollo 1 (LOC/LOV), then the success rate goes down to 80%. 

Quote
Years later they couldn't get close to this with the Shuttle missions.

Shuttle flew 135 missions with 3 losses.  STS-51-F aborted to orbit for LOM, STS-51-L resulted in the destruction of Challenger on launch for LOM and LOC/LOV, and STS-107 resulted in the destruction of Columbia on re-entry for LOC/LOV.  That gives the STS program a success rate of 132/135, or about 98%. 
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Geordie on September 12, 2017, 03:57:44 PM
[A bunch of stuff that I said]
As none of this has anything to do in the slightest with the truth or falsehood of the statement "Gardum accused people of being childish for noticing his errors", whatever point you are trying to make appears to be completely unrelated to my point.
  Quid infantes sumus?

  Perhaps a careful re-reading of Gardum's posts would be appropriate, (excepting the first, as I don't need a headache;)

  Here he implies exactly what you are looking for, that everyone here is a child--for pointing out his formatting and grammatical errors:
Quote from: Gardum
Any scientists here or just children that pick on line breaks or grammar ?
  And here he calls "most of [us] children" and, for good measure, "whining little suckers," for their responses, some of which were pointing out his errors:
Quote from: Gardum
From the responses I see I get the impression most of you are more the Children and whining little suckers at that, we aren't at school any more so please try and grow up or don't bother responding if all you can do is petty age games.
Q.E.D. ;)

[minorly edited]
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Obviousman on September 12, 2017, 05:01:06 PM
To be honest, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here?

Yeah, me three. I thought it was plain as day.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Geordie on September 12, 2017, 05:04:03 PM
  Quid infantes sumus? Mea máxima culpa, as I first came to this board for the schadenfreude of entertaining hoax believers. That notwithstanding I stayed for the wealth of professional information and experience.

  Thanks to those who share such information and experience, and thanks to those who, like myself, are less informed but who ask intelligent and pertinent questions. I get a lot out of both. Thanks again.

  Oh and thanks to the person or persons who keep this site rolling along.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: sandopan on September 12, 2017, 11:15:40 PM
  Perhaps a careful re-reading of Gardum's posts would be appropriate, (excepting the first, as I don't need a headache;)

I've already read them carefully, and none of them contain a statement that matches what Gillianren claims s/he said.

  Here he implies exactly what you are looking for,

No, here s/he states something that is different than what I am looking for.

I've already pointed that out.  Several times.  Gardum did complain that people were picking on his/her errors; s/he did not complain that people were noticing his errors.

But thank you for pointing out that you are not capable of understanding the simple distinction between those two statements, even after having it explained to you several times.

Q.E.D. ;)

More like Q.E.N.D.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Geordie on September 13, 2017, 01:06:23 AM
  Perhaps a careful re-reading of Gardum's posts would be appropriate, (excepting the first, as I don't need a headache;)

I've already read them carefully, and none of them contain a statement that matches what Gillianren claims s/he said.

  Here he implies exactly what you are looking for,

No, here s/he states something that is different than what I am looking for.

I've already pointed that out.  Several times.  Gardum did complain that people were picking on his/her errors; s/he did not complain that people were noticing his errors.

But thank you for pointing out that you are not capable of understanding the simple distinction between those two statements, even after having it explained to you several times.

Q.E.D. ;)

More like Q.E.N.D.

I guess I'm just not as good as you when it comes to splitting hairs, coarse or fine. Your posts have become uninteresting, but...

Congratulations!

You win the cup!
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: sandopan on September 13, 2017, 01:26:03 AM
I guess I'm just not as good as you when it comes to splitting hairs, coarse or fine. Your posts have become uninteresting, but...

Congratulations!

You win the cup!

If you took that attitude sooner, we might never have gotten to the part where Gardum asked whether the form is full of children.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: smartcooky on September 13, 2017, 01:38:49 AM
  Perhaps a careful re-reading of Gardum's posts would be appropriate, (excepting the first, as I don't need a headache;)

I've already read them carefully, and none of them contain a statement that matches what Gillianren claims s/he said.

  Here he implies exactly what you are looking for,

No, here s/he states something that is different than what I am looking for.

I've already pointed that out.  Several times.  Gardum did complain that people were picking on his/her errors; s/he did not complain that people were noticing his errors.

But thank you for pointing out that you are not capable of understanding the simple distinction between those two statements, even after having it explained to you several times.

Q.E.D. ;)

More like Q.E.N.D.

Being picky and pedantic about who said what gets us nowhere.

If Gardum wants us to take him seriously he will be expected as a minimum standard to post in a manner that is comprehensible. His first few posts have been anything but, and frankly, I had trouble working out exactly what it is he is saying (and I still do).

He makes things more difficult on himself by going off on irrelevant tangents about jetskiing and his hobbies... WE DON'T CARE... Quite simply, we are not interested in his hobbies or what he does in his spare time. The onus is on HIM to make sure his posts stick to the point and are able to be understood, its NOT on the members here to try to decipher his jibber-jabber.

sandovan, you are new here so you are probably not aware that the regular users of this forum forum are well versed in recognizing the Conspiracy Theorist's "tricks of the trade". These include

Poorly formatted posts
Very poor grammar, punctuation, sentence structure
Inability to understand the quote function and how to edit posts accordingly
Diverting off on tangents about personal life
Abuse of other posters, including Ad Hominem attacks

Those last two especially show up when CTs are confronted with criticism, find their claims are not accepted, and are asked to provide evidence in support of their assertions. IMO, these are simply diversionary tactics that they employ in an a attempt to draw attention away from their lack of supporting evidence.

Now, Gardum has already exhibited a few of these traits, and he's only posted three times. This makes us very suspicious because we have see all this before.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: sts60 on September 13, 2017, 01:44:19 AM
Will you ladies and/or gentlemen kindly take the discussion of who's noticing and complaining about whatever to its own thread in the General subforum?

I'd like to hear Gardum address the errors we've identified for him, so we can move on to heat transfer.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: sandopan on September 13, 2017, 03:13:24 AM
Being picky and pedantic about who said what gets us nowhere.

I think being intellectually dishonest gets us nowhere, and simply gives people like Gardum an opportunity to accuse the board of hypocrisy.

Bull**** is bull**** no matter who says it.  If everyone wants to pile up on Gardum because s/he posts bull****, then blubber like babies because someone called them on their own bull****, then they might want to get used to being called children, because it's going to happen a lot.

Everyone likes me and thinks I'm great
In my safe space (my safe space)
People don't judge me and haters don't hate
In my safe space (your safe space)

Bully-proof windows
Troll-safe doors
Nothing but kindness in here

You might call me a pussy
But I won't hear you
In my safe space (my safe space)
(Bully-proof windows)

If you do not like me
You are not allowed
In my safe space (my safe space)

Look and you will see
There's a very select crowd
In your safe space (my safe space)

People that support me
Mixed in with
More people that support me
And say nice things
Rainbows all around me
There is no shame in my safe space (my safe space)
(Bully-proof windows)


Source (http://www.metrolyrics.com/in-my-safe-space-lyrics-south-park.html)

Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Halcyon Dayz, FCD on September 13, 2017, 05:11:01 AM
Pearl-clutching is three doors to the left.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: smartcooky on September 13, 2017, 05:12:58 AM
Being picky and pedantic about who said what gets us nowhere.

I think being intellectually dishonest gets us nowhere, and simply gives people like Gardum an opportunity to accuse the board of hypocrisy. <snip>

I'm just waiting for Gardum to post something I can comprehend, so that I can set about dismantling his claims. As STS60 said, we can start with heat transfer.

On the earth, an object in direct sunlight will gradually heat up until it reaches thermal equilibrium. That heating comes from three sources

1. Radiation... the sun's rays striking the surface of the object.
2. Conduction... direct contact with the surface it is placed on.
3. Convection... circulation of the air surrounding the object.

If an object that has reached thermal equilibrium on a concrete floor in the sun is placed in full shade, all three methods of heat transfer come into play to begin cooling the object. Radiation no longer happens because sunlight no longer strikes the object, conduction occurs because heat is transferred away by contact with the colder surface, and convection happens because the air is in contact with the object on all sides

However, on the moon, there is no air, therefore, there is no convection. That leaves only radiation and conduction, and if the object is placed in the shade, the ONLY thing that can cool the object is conduction.

Gardum speaks about thermal transfer on the moon in the same terms that he expects to find on the earth, but the thermal environments are different. The moon is a hard vacuum
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Zakalwe on September 13, 2017, 05:22:08 AM

However, on the moon, there is no air, therefore, there is no convection. That leaves only radiation and conduction, and if the object is placed in the shade, the ONLY thing that can cool the object is conduction.


Did you mean to say "That leaves only radiation and conduction, and if the object is placed in the shade, the ONLY thing that can cool HEAT the object is conduction. "?
If an object is in the shade then it can radiate it's heat to space (essentially a black body).
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: smartcooky on September 13, 2017, 07:39:06 AM

However, on the moon, there is no air, therefore, there is no convection. That leaves only radiation and conduction, and if the object is placed in the shade, the ONLY thing that can cool the object is conduction.


Did you mean to say "That leaves only radiation and conduction, and if the object is placed in the shade, the ONLY thing that can cool HEAT the object is conduction. "?
If an object is in the shade then it can radiate it's heat to space (essentially a black body).

I said the object was in direct sunlight and at thermal equilibrium (therefore hot) and is then moved into the shade. The object can be cooled but NOT by convection the way it could be on Earth, because there is no air on the moon. Is that not correct?

PS:
Yes, it can radiate into space
Yes, any cooler surface in contact can conduct heat away

The point I was making is that heat transfer does not work the same way in a vacuum that it does in an atmosphere.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Von_Smith on September 13, 2017, 07:44:03 AM
Being picky and pedantic about who said what gets us nowhere.

I think being intellectually dishonest gets us nowhere, and simply gives people like Gardum an opportunity to accuse the board of hypocrisy.

Bull**** is bull**** no matter who says it.  If everyone wants to pile up on Gardum because s/he posts bull****, then blubber like babies because someone called them on their own bull****, then they might want to get used to being called children, because it's going to happen a lot.

I didn't really want my first post on this forum to be something snarky to the effect of:  "Concern troll is concerned", but what the heck.

What exactly is your complaint?  What exactly do you hope to contribute to the discussion? Somebody wrote "noticed" when you feel they should have written "picked on".  A reasonably charitable reading would suggest that this was at worst a poor choice of words, and if that had actually been your complaint it would have been more constructive to point that out to start with.

It looks to me like what actually happend is that you missed something Gardum wrote and, when that was pointed out to you, you decided to double down and resort to hair-splitting and name-calling in order to save face rather than just admit that you missed it.

I don't buy your self-righteous posturing here, and I wish you'd stop.

I'll post something later (as in, after work) more to the topic of the thread.  Anyway, hi everybody!
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Zakalwe on September 13, 2017, 07:59:42 AM

I said the object was in direct sunlight and at thermal equilibrium (therefore hot) and is then moved into the shade. The object can be cooled but NOT by convection the way it could be on Earth, because there is no air on the moon. Is that not correct?

PS:
Yes, it can radiate into space
Yes, any cooler surface in contact can conduct heat away

If an object is moved into direct shade, then it can be cooled by conduction if it is in contact with another object and by radiating it's heat into space. I was confused when you said that " if the object is placed in the shade, the ONLY thing that can cool the object is conduction."


The point I was making is that heat transfer does not work the same way in a vacuum that it does in an atmosphere.
100% this.
Its a common hoax trend to cry foul when things look different and act different to how their "common sense" tells them. Heat transfer and believing that the camera film would melt is a real "tell", along with waving flags and tyre marks!
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Zakalwe on September 13, 2017, 08:02:48 AM
I didn't really want my first post on this forum to be something snarky to the effect of:  "Concern troll is concerned", but what the heck.

(http://content.invisioncic.com/r106981/emoticons/default_icon_salut.gif) Agreed!

Anyway, hi everybody!

[waves hello  :)]
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: sts60 on September 13, 2017, 09:48:22 AM
This is kind of nitpicky, but some might get confused by what shade does in the radiative transfer regime.

If I am walking around at high Moon noon, and find myself getting too hot from the Sun, I can duck into the shade of a big rock, but still be heated by the solar energy reflected from the lunar surface (albedo heating), as well as the solar energy absorbed and re-emitted from the surface (infrared heating), even as my suit is radiating heat to deep space. 

But I'm also radiating heat toward the lunar surface, and a (very small) amount of heat energy from deep space is impinging on my suit.  There's no one-way switch depending on your view to certain objects.  Your surface radiates energy away, proportional to the fourth power of your absolute surface temperature.  Everything that sees you radiates energy toward you.  Radiative heat transfer is the sum of all the net heat flows between you and everything you see/that sees you.

The deep space background is so "cold" from a radiative perspective that its radiative transfer to you is basically nil.  This is not the case for the Earth as viewed from an orbiting spacecraft, even at orbital night, where the Earth is busily rejecting daytime heat buildup to space.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: bknight on September 13, 2017, 09:51:23 AM
...
I'll post something later (as in, after work) more to the topic of the thread.  Anyway, hi everybody!

Welcome to the board.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Abaddon on September 13, 2017, 10:31:26 AM
Being picky and pedantic about who said what gets us nowhere.

I think being intellectually dishonest gets us nowhere, and simply gives people like Gardum an opportunity to accuse the board of hypocrisy.

Bull**** is bull**** no matter who says it.  If everyone wants to pile up on Gardum because s/he posts bull****, then blubber like babies because someone called them on their own bull****, then they might want to get used to being called children, because it's going to happen a lot.

I didn't really want my first post on this forum to be something snarky to the effect of:  "Concern troll is concerned", but what the heck.

What exactly is your complaint?  What exactly do you hope to contribute to the discussion? Somebody wrote "noticed" when you feel they should have written "picked on".  A reasonably charitable reading would suggest that this was at worst a poor choice of words, and if that had actually been your complaint it would have been more constructive to point that out to start with.

It looks to me like what actually happend is that you missed something Gardum wrote and, when that was pointed out to you, you decided to double down and resort to hair-splitting and name-calling in order to save face rather than just admit that you missed it.

I don't buy your self-righteous posturing here, and I wish you'd stop.

I'll post something later (as in, after work) more to the topic of the thread.  Anyway, hi everybody!
Welcome.

Don't worry about that as your first post, I have no idea what burr is under Sandopan's saddle or why. It seems a trivial irrelevancy to me.

The simple fact is that Gardum has three posts. Mostly incoherent rambling with a large dollop of "What I did on my holidays" as though it was somehow relevant to the topic at hand. Clearly, he/she has no intention of engaging in any meaningful way. Typical seagull poster. Fly in, poop over everything and fly away again.

Maybe Gardum will prove me wrong, but I am not holding my breath.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: nomuse on September 13, 2017, 11:08:53 AM
If you are going to make an argument based on how you are the only one correctly interpreting a statement by our recent guest, the first thing you need to do is to be a hell of a lot clearer than you have been on how your interpretation differs.

I understand you are picking up on something you think is important, and that you believe should not be open to the interpretation given to it by people other than yourself.

If you are going to continue this, then I for one need you to explain explicitly. In your words, in a variety of words, in ways that aren't simply you copying a phrase or two and pointing at them and saying, "It's obvious, just read it!"



  Perhaps a careful re-reading of Gardum's posts would be appropriate, (excepting the first, as I don't need a headache;)

I've already read them carefully, and none of them contain a statement that matches what Gillianren claims s/he said.

  Here he implies exactly what you are looking for,

No, here s/he states something that is different than what I am looking for.

I've already pointed that out.  Several times.  Gardum did complain that people were picking on his/her errors; s/he did not complain that people were noticing his errors.

But thank you for pointing out that you are not capable of understanding the simple distinction between those two statements, even after having it explained to you several times.

Q.E.D. ;)

More like Q.E.N.D.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: JayUtah on September 13, 2017, 12:43:16 PM
Everything that sees you radiates energy toward you.  Radiative heat transfer is the sum of all the net heat flows between you and everything you see/that sees you.

And that's the fun part to model for thermal analysis purposes.  Imagine you're laying on your back on the ground, and over you is a transparent hemispherical dome.  You have a stick with a Sharpie on it, long enough for you to inscribe the dome from underneath.  So for each object, you draw its outline on the dome from your vantage point, so faraway things have a small outline etc.  You just draw it as you see it from your position on the floor at the center of the dome.  Now hang a plumb-bob from each corner or contour of the image you drew on the dome for each object and mark the projected outline on the floor.  Obviously things directly above you transcribe down to the floor with little if any distortion.  Objects that were essentially on the horizon -- i.e., in a direction perpendicular to your plane of interest (the floor) -- are squished and narrowed.  Now for each object, consider the ratio of the area you outlined on the floor to the area of the whole circle of floor under the dome.  That gives you a rough attenuation factor for the energy you're receiving in radiant fashion from that object.  You can scale the amount of heat you compute it's emitting by that ratio and come up with a reasonable estimate for how much of that energy is arriving at some surface.

The lunar module actually had a problem with this on one of the missions that landed in the highlands.  A particular bit of equipment wasn't radiating away its heat at the expected rate.  Engineers figured out that because of the angle the LM had landed at, the radiator for that equipment actually had a view factor to the top of one of the mountains, and it was radiating enough heat onto the radiator to disrupt the equilibrium.  It had been designed to have a view factor only to empty space.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Zakalwe on September 13, 2017, 03:13:26 PM
And that, ladies and gents is why I come here. People with expertise in their field can explain concepts that they are intimately familiar with in ways that a pleb like me can understand.

Whereas a hoaxie takes a simple thing and twists it into something complicated (and, generally, totally incorrect).
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: smartcooky on September 13, 2017, 03:15:39 PM
The lunar module actually had a problem with this on one of the missions that landed in the highlands.  A particular bit of equipment wasn't radiating away its heat at the expected rate.  Engineers figured out that because of the angle the LM had landed at, the radiator for that equipment actually had a view factor to the top of one of the mountains, and it was radiating enough heat onto the radiator to disrupt the equilibrium.  It had been designed to have a view factor only to empty space.


A prime example of why "intuition" is not enough to argue the ins and outs of thermal transfer in an airless environment.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the side of the LM on which this piece of equipment was located was tilted towards the mountain in question; making the mountain higher on the LM's "local horizon" than it would have been if the LM landed on level ground.     
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Von_Smith on September 13, 2017, 04:29:43 PM

Photography in space with out an enclosure with part atmosphere and heating plate only done by NASA

AIUI, the US Army took film pictures from space with a perfectly ordinary camera in 1946.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-2_No._13. 

That said, I'm not sure how it was secured to the rocket, so I don't know if it fits your "enclosure with part atmosphere" or not. 

Quote
no other Nation has done this with a mechanical camera and Film Frizzbizz Fromage had placed a Link from the Soviets Photographic attempts on the Moon and when you read the article it explains quite clearly enclosure part Atmosphere and heating plate.

Depends on whether the film was being returned for processing on Earth or not, I suspect, as opposed to being developed automatically on the spacecraft (which needed an enclosed environment at the appropriate temperature).  Also probably depends on whether the imaging system relied on photomultiplier tubes, which could overheat (having an atmosphere helps conduct heat off vacuum tubes).

Quote
All Military and NASA photography before the Apollo missions during and after all had enclosures with part Atmosphere and heating plate, any one with any photographic experience with the Air force or any other department would know this.


Actually, the Hasselblad cameras were used on Mercury and Gemini as well.  If you wanted to attack an Apollo-only system you might be better off going after the Maurer 16mm DAC cameras.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Zakalwe on September 13, 2017, 04:44:25 PM
Actually, the Hasselblad cameras were used on Mercury and Gemini as well.  If you wanted to attack an Apollo-only system you might be better off going after the Maurer 16mm DAC cameras.

It's a good point. However, given that Gardum appeared ignorant of the early flights in the Apollo program, it's highly likely that he has never heard of Gemini or Mercury. It's a common trait amongst hoaxies- they attack parts of Apollo without realising that many of the key elements of the program had been proven in Gemini.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: bknight on September 13, 2017, 05:03:10 PM
Everything that sees you radiates energy toward you.  Radiative heat transfer is the sum of all the net heat flows between you and everything you see/that sees you.

And that's the fun part to model for thermal analysis purposes.  Imagine you're laying on your back on the ground, and over you is a transparent hemispherical dome.  You have a stick with a Sharpie on it, long enough for you to inscribe the dome from underneath.  So for each object, you draw its outline on the dome from your vantage point, so faraway things have a small outline etc.  You just draw it as you see it from your position on the floor at the center of the dome.  Now hang a plumb-bob from each corner or contour of the image you drew on the dome for each object and mark the projected outline on the floor.  Obviously things directly above you transcribe down to the floor with little if any distortion.  Objects that were essentially on the horizon -- i.e., in a direction perpendicular to your plane of interest (the floor) -- are squished and narrowed.  Now for each object, consider the ratio of the area you outlined on the floor to the area of the whole circle of floor under the dome.  That gives you a rough attenuation factor for the energy you're receiving in radiant fashion from that object.  You can scale the amount of heat you compute it's emitting by that ratio and come up with a reasonable estimate for how much of that energy is arriving at some surface.

This feels like a free body analysis, with me shuddering.
Quote

The lunar module actually had a problem with this on one of the missions that landed in the highlands.  A particular bit of equipment wasn't radiating away its heat at the expected rate.  Engineers figured out that because of the angle the LM had landed at, the radiator for that equipment actually had a view factor to the top of one of the mountains, and it was radiating enough heat onto the radiator to disrupt the equilibrium.  It had been designed to have a view factor only to empty space.

I believe smartcooky has the right stuff.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: smartcooky on September 13, 2017, 06:23:00 PM
Actually, the Hasselblad cameras were used on Mercury and Gemini as well.  If you wanted to attack an Apollo-only system you might be better off going after the Maurer 16mm DAC cameras.

It's a good point. However, given that Gardum appeared ignorant of the early flights in the Apollo program, it's highly likely that he has never heard of Gemini or Mercury. It's a common trait amongst hoaxies- they attack parts of Apollo without realising that many of the key elements of the program had been proven in Gemini.

Not only in-flight/in-space testing either. Equipment was extensively tested on the ground in lunar type environments, for example space suits were rigorously tested in a vacuum chamber while being worn by test subjects. There was a near-fatal accident while doing so ...

http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a24127/nasa-vacuum-exposure/

Of course Hoaxtards know nothing of all this.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Zakalwe on September 13, 2017, 06:44:52 PM
Not only in-flight/in-space testing either. Equipment was extensively tested on the ground in lunar type environments, for example space suits were rigorously tested in a vacuum chamber while being worn by test subjects. There was a near-fatal accident while doing so ...

http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a24127/nasa-vacuum-exposure/

Of course Hoaxtards know nothing of all this.

Indeed.
Hoaxies seem incapable of grasping the fact that the program was built on a series of incremental steps.Even the "All Up" testing if the Saturn had incremental steps.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Geordie on September 13, 2017, 09:48:02 PM
Hi everybody!
People don't judge me and haters don't hate
In my safe space (your safe space)
Hello [...] I am here as a noob and first time poster.
Although I have been here just a hair's breadth (if you'll excuse the metaphor) longer than the three of you,

Please accept my heartfelt welcome, and if any of you (or the rest of the board for that matter) find yourself in Vancouver, get a hold of me and I'll treat you to a cup of coffee.

Everyone have a great [whatever time of day it is where you are].

Geordie
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: raven on September 13, 2017, 10:52:49 PM
Heh, I'm on Vancouver Island, Geordie. If I am in the neighborhood, I might just take you up on that. :)
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: gillianren on September 14, 2017, 12:06:25 PM
Hey, I'm just across the border from you folks!  Well, and a couple hours' drive south.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Geordie on September 14, 2017, 01:08:06 PM
Heh, I'm on Vancouver Island, Geordie. If I am in the neighborhood, I might just take you up on that. :)
Hey, I'm just across the border from you folks!  Well, and a couple hours' drive south.
All welcome.
'Twould be fun.
The first Vancouver BC ApolloHoax ISSpresso meetup (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISSpresso)!

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/ISS-43_new_ISSpresso_machine.jpg/512px-ISS-43_new_ISSpresso_machine.jpg) (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AISS-43_new_ISSpresso_machine.jpg)
ISS-43 new ISSpresso machine (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AISS-43_new_ISSpresso_machine.jpg) [Public domain], by NASA, from Wikimedia Commons

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d2/ISS-43_Samantha_Cristoforetti_drinks_coffee_in_the_Cupola.jpg/512px-ISS-43_Samantha_Cristoforetti_drinks_coffee_in_the_Cupola.jpg) (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AISS-43_Samantha_Cristoforetti_drinks_coffee_in_the_Cupola.jpg)
ISS-43 Samantha Cristoforetti drinks coffee in the Cupola (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AISS-43_Samantha_Cristoforetti_drinks_coffee_in_the_Cupola.jpg) [Public domain], by NASA, from Wikimedia Commons
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: smartcooky on September 14, 2017, 05:25:26 PM
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/ISS-43_Samantha_Cristoforetti_drinks_coffee_in_the_Cupola.jpg)

I see Samantha is wearing her Star Trek Federation Engineers uniform
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Glom on September 14, 2017, 08:16:27 PM
That uniform is the lamest one. Go with the movies one or maybe the First Contact one.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: raven on September 14, 2017, 10:21:47 PM
That uniform is the lamest one. Go with the movies one or maybe the First Contact one.
Nah, the lamest was the 1st movie. *shudder*
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: bknight on September 14, 2017, 11:05:49 PM
That uniform is the lamest one. Go with the movies one or maybe the First Contact one.
Nah, the lamest was the 1st movie. *shudder*

I concur.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: smartcooky on September 14, 2017, 11:12:02 PM
That uniform is the lamest one. Go with the movies one or maybe the First Contact one.
Nah, the lamest was the 1st movie. *shudder*

Grey, beige and white.... ugh!

ETA


(https://www.dropbox.com/s/8227k51hiuq3yg2/STMP79.jpg?dl=1)


As if we needed reminding....Ugh!2
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Geordie on September 15, 2017, 01:22:17 AM
That uniform is the lamest one. Go with the movies one or maybe the First Contact one.
Nah, the lamest was the 1st movie. *shudder*

Grey, beige and white.... ugh!

ETA


(https://www.dropbox.com/s/8227k51hiuq3yg2/STMP79.jpg?dl=1)


As if we needed reminding....Ugh!2

     Burn, baby burn--Disco inferno  8) ???
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: nomuse on September 15, 2017, 03:52:34 AM
I saw a production of The Winter's Tale costumed by the same designer. Ghastly (although the costumes were far from the weakest part of that production).
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: MBDK on September 15, 2017, 04:10:38 AM
You don't see that "children that pick on line breaks or grammar" is saying you're childish for noticing?  Okay.

So that makes at least two people at this board who seem to be incapable of distinguishing between noticing something and picking on someone for something, and one of them claims to have worked as a proofreader.

And IMHO, you make at least one person who seems to be incapable of making a cognitive connection between two variations of a common idea that everyone I know understands succinctly.  But that must be because you are so much smarter than everyone else, and certainly aren't childish in your own way to argue about it.

(sarcasm mode off)
Gardum's message was VERY clear, especially in context with the vaguery of everything else he/she wrote.  Your attempt to make it an issue about fairness and honesty has actually been an example of unfair, dishonest obfuscation.  Your arguments on this subject (again, IMHO) are empty, pointless and nonsensical.  What is your real agenda?
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Glom on September 15, 2017, 07:17:29 AM
That uniform is the lamest one. Go with the movies one or maybe the First Contact one.
Nah, the lamest was the 1st movie. *shudder*
Good point. I forgot about that. Maybe it was because I've only ever seen that movie once.

It goes like this
Movies 2-6
ENT
FC/late DS9
TNG s3+
TOS
Early DS9/VOY
Early TNG
TMP

I forgot about ENT before, which actually had pretty sweet uniforms, but I would never suggest wearing one because while on its own it's a good design that series was terrible. That's probably why I reacted negatively to that picture because it invoked VOY.

Edit: actually I might rate TOS more highly because I liked the use of braids for rank insignia. I also forgot the TOS pilot uniforms, which I would rate as equal to the main TOS uniforms because on the one hand they are a bit more drab, but on the other hand the less bright primary colours makes them look more professional.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Von_Smith on September 15, 2017, 07:38:07 AM
You don't see that "children that pick on line breaks or grammar" is saying you're childish for noticing?  Okay.

So that makes at least two people at this board who seem to be incapable of distinguishing between noticing something and picking on someone for something, and one of them claims to have worked as a proofreader.

And IMHO, you make at least one person who seems to be incapable of making a cognitive connection between two variations of a common idea that everyone I know understands succinctly.  But that must be because you are so much smarter than everyone else, and certainly aren't childish in your own way to argue about it.

(sarcasm mode off)
Gardum's message was VERY clear, especially in context with the vaguery of everything else he/she wrote.  Your attempt to make it an issue about fairness and honesty has actually been an example of unfair, dishonest obfuscation.  Your arguments on this subject (again, IMHO) are empty, pointless and nonsensical.  What is your real agenda?

What I find esepcially ironic is that this whole thing arose because *Gardum* couldn't distinguish between noticing something and picking on someone for it.  He was the one who mistakenly characterized the former as the latter.  Most readers here unconsciously auto-corrected.  Sandopan, in his haste to smite the Apollo-gists (or whomever it is he imagines he's smiting) did not.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: raven on September 15, 2017, 11:05:28 AM
That uniform is the lamest one. Go with the movies one or maybe the First Contact one.
Nah, the lamest was the 1st movie. *shudder*
Good point. I forgot about that. Maybe it was because I've only ever seen that movie once.

It goes like this
Movies 2-6
ENT
FC/late DS9
TNG s3+
TOS
Early DS9/VOY
Early TNG
TMP

I forgot about ENT before, which actually had pretty sweet uniforms, but I would never suggest wearing one because while on its own it's a good design that series was terrible. That's probably why I reacted negatively to that picture because it invoked VOY.

Edit: actually I might rate TOS more highly because I liked the use of braids for rank insignia. I also forgot the TOS pilot uniforms, which I would rate as equal to the main TOS uniforms because on the one hand they are a bit more drab, but on the other hand the less bright primary colours makes them look more professional.
Yeah, Enterprise outfits were definitely in my top 3. Not so great series, but I loved the NASA flightsuit inspired unifiorms.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Count Zero on September 15, 2017, 11:12:39 AM
I agree that the 1st movie "pajamas" were terrible, but when it was first release that was the least of the film's problems.

However...
If you like Star Trek at all, see the Director's Edition. Originally, Paramount was in a hurry to cash-in on the success of Star Wars with 'some cheesy old TV property' that they owned the rights to. They rushed the production to the theater despite major problems with the special effects

Normally, a director will assemble a "rough cut" to show the overall structure of the story, and then edit it down for pacing. The director Robert Wise (who had directed "The Day the Earth Stood Still", "West Side Story", "The Sound of Music" and "The Andromeda Strain") got no respect from Paramount. They took the rough cut from him and released it to theaters in 1979 to what can charitably be called 'tepid' reviews

20+ years later, the situation was very different. Star Trek was a successful billion-dollar franchise and the DVD market was swelling rapidly. The new management at Paramount went to Wise with a wheelbarrow full of money and asked him politely if he would like to *finish* "ST:TMP" with a proper edit and re-done special effects where needed.

I never liked this movie until I saw the DE. It was a revelation. It was everything Star Trek should be (are you listening, J. J. Abrams?). Maybe it is age, but the questions in this movie - Why am I here? Is this all that I am? Is there nothing more? - really resonate with me.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: jfb on September 15, 2017, 01:58:08 PM
That uniform is the lamest one. Go with the movies one or maybe the First Contact one.
Nah, the lamest was the 1st movie. *shudder*
Good point. I forgot about that. Maybe it was because I've only ever seen that movie once.

It goes like this
Movies 2-6
ENT
FC/late DS9
TNG s3+
TOS
Early DS9/VOY
Early TNG
TMP

I forgot about ENT before, which actually had pretty sweet uniforms, but I would never suggest wearing one because while on its own it's a good design that series was terrible. That's probably why I reacted negatively to that picture because it invoked VOY.

Edit: actually I might rate TOS more highly because I liked the use of braids for rank insignia. I also forgot the TOS pilot uniforms, which I would rate as equal to the main TOS uniforms because on the one hand they are a bit more drab, but on the other hand the less bright primary colours makes them look more professional.
Yeah, Enterprise outfits were definitely in my top 3. Not so great series, but I loved the NASA flightsuit inspired unifiorms.

The Enterprise uniforms were probably the most functional and "realistic" of the bunch.  My favorites, however, are the TWOK-TUC era uniforms.  When TWOK came out, a friend of mine remarked that they looked too Soviet. I thought they were fantastic, and they're one of the few ST uniform designs that clearly differentiate officers from crew (chiefs should get their own look, though, because they're chiefs, dammit). 

They also employed more than 3 primary colors to indicate departments, which was a welcome change from the usual "command", "sciences", "operations" partitioning. 

Wholly impractical, though. 

Roddenberry didn't want Starfleet to be overtly militaristic, which is why the TOS uniforms were what they were, and I suspect why the TMP uniforms came across as dental-hygienist-meets-loungewear.  Had they ditched the belly scanner and gone with different colors (and some slight alterations to the cut), they wouldn't have been too bad.  Ragingly 1970s still, yeah, but not too bad.  Closer to the Space:1999 style uniforms, maybe. 
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: smartcooky on September 15, 2017, 05:40:45 PM
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/ISS-43_new_ISSpresso_machine.jpg/512px-ISS-43_new_ISSpresso_machine.jpg) (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AISS-43_new_ISSpresso_machine.jpg)
ISS-43 new ISSpresso machine (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AISS-43_new_ISSpresso_machine.jpg) [Public domain], by NASA, from Wikimedia Commons

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d2/ISS-43_Samantha_Cristoforetti_drinks_coffee_in_the_Cupola.jpg/512px-ISS-43_Samantha_Cristoforetti_drinks_coffee_in_the_Cupola.jpg) (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AISS-43_Samantha_Cristoforetti_drinks_coffee_in_the_Cupola.jpg)
ISS-43 Samantha Cristoforetti drinks coffee in the Cupola (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AISS-43_Samantha_Cristoforetti_drinks_coffee_in_the_Cupola.jpg) [Public domain], by NASA, from Wikimedia Commons

Hey Geordie

I'll bet you didn't expect this to turn into a discussion about Scifi Movie uniforms when you posted that photo of Samantha  Cristoforetti, did you? Well, that can happen here sometimes when the membership gets bored while waiting for Hoax Believers to back-up their unsupported assertions and spurious claims with actual evidence.

Say Geordie, what is your last name anyway, and do you wear half a carburettor air filter over your eyes?
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Obviousman on September 15, 2017, 06:13:19 PM
I really enjoyed ST:ENT, myself. Sure, there were some stinker eps but there were some really great ones, too.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Geordie on September 15, 2017, 08:07:31 PM
Hey Geordie

I'll bet you didn't expect this to turn into a discussion about Scifi Movie uniforms when you posted that photo of Samantha  Cristoforetti, did you? Well, that can happen here sometimes when the membership gets bored while waiting for Hoax Believers to back-up their unsupported assertions and spurious claims with actual evidence.

Say Geordie, what is your last name anyway, and do you wear half a carburettor air filter over your eyes?
Haha, I considered pointing out that Cristoforetti was in Star Trek livery--turns out it was unnecessary. 

Hmmm, my last name. Email me; I'll email you back, and then you'll know--if you don't already. It's not exactly a state secret. :)

I wear high-powered corrective lenses over my eyes, except when reading (my mom laughs at me: "You take your glasses off to read!") The pink kaffiyeh (which I purchased from a Syrian falafel joint) is fun to wear, but for some reason I have yet to venture out whilst in a masked mode. (That's not entirely correct, the first time I tied it like that I was in a public park, where a child took an intense interest in me (from a metre away,) and referred to me nonchalantly as "the bad guy.")

Please don't report me to the RCMP or the FBI. ;)

[2 edits: added 2 sentences; fixed typo.]
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: BazBear on September 16, 2017, 01:24:17 AM

     Burn, baby burn--Disco inferno  8) ???
BURN_BABY_BURN--MASTER_IGNITION_ROUTINE (https://github.com/chrislgarry/Apollo-11/blob/master/Luminary099/BURN_BABY_BURN--MASTER_IGNITION_ROUTINE.agc)  ;D
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Geordie on September 16, 2017, 11:29:18 AM
Hey Geordie

I'll bet you didn't expect this to turn into a discussion about Scifi Movie uniforms when you posted that photo of Samantha  Cristoforetti, did you? Well, that can happen here sometimes when the membership gets bored while waiting for Hoax Believers to back-up their unsupported assertions and spurious claims with actual evidence.

Say Geordie, what is your last name anyway, and do you wear half a carburettor air filter over your eyes?
[obfuscation and alternative facts]

Okay, okay, after a sleepless night with my conscience tormenting me, I have decided to come clean.

My last name is la Forge and yes, I wear half of a carburetor air filter over my eyes (I believe is made by Fram.) I thought that by spelling my name with an 'e' on the end, I would through people off the scent. I found a picture of some chump over on breitbart to further cloak (cloak?) my identify.

But you figured it out, dammit. Don't tell anyone.

:]
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Geordie on September 16, 2017, 11:51:36 AM

     Burn, baby burn--Disco inferno  8) ???
BURN_BABY_BURN--MASTER_IGNITION_ROUTINE (https://github.com/chrislgarry/Apollo-11/blob/master/Luminary099/BURN_BABY_BURN--MASTER_IGNITION_ROUTINE.agc)  ;D
(http://i65.tinypic.com/i3f4sg.jpg)(http://i64.tinypic.com/1zqx75v.jpg)
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Zakalwe on September 16, 2017, 12:20:56 PM
Looks like our seagull has flapped away....
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: gillianren on September 16, 2017, 12:27:37 PM
It's not a carburetor filter; it's a banana clip.

https://www.amazon.com/Standard-Banana-Clip-Indispensable-Basic/dp/B00DQD3REE
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: BazBear on September 16, 2017, 01:54:46 PM
Looks like our seagull has flapped away....
I wonder if he/she would return if we threw up some Golden ArchesTM and scattered some Mc D's fries around? It seems to work for the gulls that can fly. ;)
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: raven on September 16, 2017, 02:05:58 PM
It's not a carburetor filter; it's a banana clip.

https://www.amazon.com/Standard-Banana-Clip-Indispensable-Basic/dp/B00DQD3REE
Valuable info for cosplayers everywhere. :)
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: AtomicDog on September 16, 2017, 02:56:42 PM

     Burn, baby burn--Disco inferno  8) ???
BURN_BABY_BURN--MASTER_IGNITION_ROUTINE (https://github.com/chrislgarry/Apollo-11/blob/master/Luminary099/BURN_BABY_BURN--MASTER_IGNITION_ROUTINE.agc)  ;D
(http://i65.tinypic.com/i3f4sg.jpg)(http://i64.tinypic.com/1zqx75v.jpg)

     Burn, baby burn--Disco inferno  8) ???
BURN_BABY_BURN--MASTER_IGNITION_ROUTINE (https://github.com/chrislgarry/Apollo-11/blob/master/Luminary099/BURN_BABY_BURN--MASTER_IGNITION_ROUTINE.agc)  ;D
(http://i65.tinypic.com/i3f4sg.jpg)(http://i64.tinypic.com/1zqx75v.jpg)

Now you're getting into my territory, or my name isn't....

AtomicDog!
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Geordie on September 16, 2017, 05:42:51 PM
Now you're getting into my territory, or my name isn't....

AtomicDog!
How 'bout some extravehicular activity?
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: gillianren on September 17, 2017, 12:49:19 PM
It's not a carburetor filter; it's a banana clip.

https://www.amazon.com/Standard-Banana-Clip-Indispensable-Basic/dp/B00DQD3REE
Valuable info for cosplayers everywhere. :)
 

Somewhere, I even have primary evidence for this; it's specified on one of the "making of" specials.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: raven on September 17, 2017, 01:44:15 PM
It's not a carburetor filter; it's a banana clip.

https://www.amazon.com/Standard-Banana-Clip-Indispensable-Basic/dp/B00DQD3REE
Valuable info for cosplayers everywhere. :)
 

Somewhere, I even have primary evidence for this; it's specified on one of the "making of" specials.
Oh, I believe you. I'm pretty sure I heard it too.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Zakalwe on September 17, 2017, 04:12:40 PM
You don't see that "children that pick on line breaks or grammar" is saying you're childish for noticing?  Okay.

So that makes at least two people at this board who seem to be incapable of distinguishing between noticing something and picking on someone for something, and one of them claims to have worked as a proofreader.

And IMHO, you make at least one person who seems to be incapable of making a cognitive connection between two variations of a common idea that everyone I know understands succinctly.  But that must be because you are so much smarter than everyone else, and certainly aren't childish in your own way to argue about it.

(sarcasm mode off)
Gardum's message was VERY clear, especially in context with the vaguery of everything else he/she wrote.  Your attempt to make it an issue about fairness and honesty has actually been an example of unfair, dishonest obfuscation.  Your arguments on this subject (again, IMHO) are empty, pointless and nonsensical.  What is your real agenda?

Its an example of sealion posting.

(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/873/260/a5b.png)
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Geordie on September 17, 2017, 04:19:14 PM
It's not a carburetor filter; it's a banana clip.

https://www.amazon.com/Standard-Banana-Clip-Indispensable-Basic/dp/B00DQD3REE
Valuable info for cosplayers everywhere. :)
 

Somewhere, I even have primary evidence for this; it's specified on one of the "making of" specials.
Very interesting. I'd love to craft such eyewear. When TNG first aired, I was delighted to see Laforge's first name, and, forgetting that most people are not as nerdy as myself, I thought it would result in people in general suddenly knowing how to spell my name.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: ka9q on September 18, 2017, 04:12:12 PM
I would have made my own about SPECIAL Film from Kodak with a melting point of 250C with no links to this of course as Kodak sent our photographic club the stats for the film at the time and it was nothing close.
The material in question is ESTAR (Kodak trademark), more specifically polyethylene terephthalate (PET), a member of the class of plastics known as polyesters. Although it was fairly new during the Apollo program, it eventually became widespread in commercially available film stock, replacing the weaker and less stable cellulose acetate (which in turn replaced the highly flammable and unstable cellulose nitrate). The Wikipedia entry for PET gives its melting point as "greater than 250 C".

You may be more familiar with it as the stuff plastic soda bottles are made from.

So if you don't believe the references, there's nothing to stop you from getting some and making your own measurements.

Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: ka9q on September 18, 2017, 04:23:27 PM
Which is why the Estar base was made.  Kodak was tasked with creating a film that would work in a vacuum precisely because that was the requirement.
I'm sure Estar's other properties were important for the Apollo application, but I think a big one was simply its high mechanical strength. NASA wanted to cram as many exposures as possible into each film magazine, and that meant making the film base as thin as possible. Acetate simply wouldn't have been strong enough.

Estar's strength is actually a disadvantage for movie prints -- a jam can damage a projector instead of snapping the film, which can usually be spliced.

(Reminds me of the sardonic report among electronic engineers and repair technicians that "a transistor blew to protect the fuse".)
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: ka9q on September 18, 2017, 04:48:02 PM
Take a Hasselblad camera out on an EVA of 4 hours, and this would suggest that, if it had the same reflectivity as the lunar surface, it's outer casing would heat up by 8 degrees. In fact, it was designed to be more reflective, and hence it would accept less heat than this.
Optical (visible light) reflectivity isn't the only important property. Its behavior at far infrared wavelengths is also important, as is its thermal mass.

Objects in thermal equilibrium with sunlight at our distance from the sun do not get anywhere near hot enough to emit significant visible light, or even near infrared light (the two bands where the sun radiates most of its power). Peak radiation occurs in the far infrared spectrum around 10 microns, where objects can "look" very different than in the visible. (Passive IR motion detectors also work in this region, detecting people by their own thermal emissions.)

A material that appears optically dark to our eyes might be highly reflective in the far IR, and vice versa.

A material that looks bright in the far IR will also be a poor radiator of heat at those same wavelengths, so a material that appears (relatively) dark to our eyes but bright in the far IR will get very hot in sunlight. Examples include metallic gold. It appears yellow because it absorbs blue light, unlike most metals, but like most metals it appears reflective in the far IR, so it radiates poorly.

Conversely a material that looks reflective to us but dark in the far IR will remain quite cool even in direct sunlight; examples include "second surface mirrors" such as thin films of Teflon, Kapton or Mylar with aluminum on their rear surfaces. Kapton and Mylar are (mostly) transparent to visible and near IR radiation but opaque in the far IR, where they radiate well. They're commonly used on the surfaces of thermal radiators, like those inside the Shuttle payload bay doors.

What's crucial is the balance between the visible and far IR properties. Polished aluminum metal (without a film coating) will still get very hot in the sun even though it reflects sunlight well because it's even brighter in the far IR than in the visible. In other words, you can't tell how hot the material will get by just looking at it; you also need to know how it looks in the far IR.

This is fundamental to spacecraft thermal engineering. Because they can only exchange heat with the outside world by means of radiation, various optical coatings and blankets are used as needed to keep the equilibrium temperatures close to the design values.

The Apollo lunar surface cameras were treated with a paint that not only reflected sunlight but kept heat trapped inside. Combined with their relatively large thermal mass, this kept the internal temperatures relatively constant as they were carried around on the surface. But after being jettisoned on the lunar surface, and slowly accumulating a thin layer of dust from electrostatic effects, eventually they'd reach temperature extremes similar to the lunar surface itself during its monthly cycle.

Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: ka9q on September 18, 2017, 05:16:41 PM
If I am walking around at high Moon noon, and find myself getting too hot from the Sun, I can duck into the shade of a big rock, but still be heated by the solar energy reflected from the lunar surface (albedo heating), as well as the solar energy absorbed and re-emitted from the surface (infrared heating), even as my suit is radiating heat to deep space. 

But I'm also radiating heat toward the lunar surface, and a (very small) amount of heat energy from deep space is impinging on my suit.  There's no one-way switch depending on your view to certain objects.
There is a "one way switch": possibly different optical properties at different optical wavelengths, as I explained in my last message.

But there's no one way switch that can operate at the same optical wavelength. If there were, you'd have a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

This is a bigger factor on the moon than you might think. A thermal radiator can work efficiently even in direct sunlight because the low absorptivity (high optical reflectivity) rejects the lion's share of the sun's radiation that arrives as visible and near-IR light. While the sun also radiates in the far IR, which the radiator cannot reject, the sun is very small (0.5 deg diameter) compared with the cold dark sky around it. So it doesn't have much effect.

But a thermal radiator on the moon cannot function effectively if it sees much of the hot lunar surface. Despite being much cooler than the sun, and therefore radiating less per square degree of apparent size even in the far IR, the lunar surface could easily occupy a lot more of the radiator's "sky" than the sun and thereby radiate considerably more heat into it. This was a very real problem for the ALSEP experiments left by the last three Apollo missions where the radiators, despite being pointed straight up, "saw" quite a bit of the warm mountains surrounding the landing sites. (It also didn't help that it was almost impossible to keep them free of lunar dust.)

The warm lunar surface was a significant source of heat even to the well-insulated Apollo pressure suits. The Apollo 12 crew, being the first to make two EVAs, commented on how much warmer things seemed during their second EVA even though the sun's direct thermal input to a vertical surface was essentially the same as during their first EVA. The lunar surface, being essentially horizontal, reached an equilibrium temperature according to the sine of the sun's elevation so it was warmer during the second EVA.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: JayUtah on September 19, 2017, 10:24:31 AM
...but I think a big one was simply its high mechanical strength. NASA wanted to cram as many exposures as possible into each film magazine, and that meant making the film base as thin as possible.

Very much so.  The same constraints existed for the magazines used in CORONA and in ordinary aerial photography.  At my museum we have some old SR-71 magazines with some stock still in it.  Very, very thin.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Trebor on September 19, 2017, 12:33:07 PM
I know one source where Gardum got some figures. (see attached pdf)
He quoted the temperatures from the Storage->Processed Film section in a reply on a youtube thread. Without actually naming the document or including the 'For best keeping'.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: smartcooky on September 19, 2017, 09:36:17 PM
...but I think a big one was simply its high mechanical strength. NASA wanted to cram as many exposures as possible into each film magazine, and that meant making the film base as thin as possible.

Very much so.  The same constraints existed for the magazines used in CORONA and in ordinary aerial photography.  At my museum we have some old SR-71 magazines with some stock still in it.  Very, very thin.

We used to use sprocketless 35mm film which we ran in Perkin Elmer Model 2-18 Minipan cameras.  It was very thin and it broke very easily. We used short pieces (about 1m long) for testing. Trying to load them into one of those stainless wire developing spools was bloody frustrating.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on September 20, 2017, 06:28:59 AM
I think this thread should be left as it is for now with no more comments until Gardum dignifies the forum with his presence, I will try and flush him out from YouTube but he has been absent there since his comments here.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Zakalwe on September 23, 2017, 08:55:52 AM
Meh, he won't be back.
If he does, then 10 bucks says it will only be to post more nonsense and ignore the stuff that's already been pointed out to him.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on September 23, 2017, 04:50:47 PM
Says he's decorating his house, will be back when finished ::)  ::)
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: nomuse on September 24, 2017, 02:59:24 AM
He'll wait long enough to ensure there are posts about his absence that he can complain about and thus duck any need for actual substantive response.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: Abaddon on September 26, 2017, 09:23:11 AM
Maybe he has a really, reALLY, REALLY big house.
Title: Re: Gardum's thread
Post by: BazBear on September 26, 2017, 03:22:21 PM
Meh, he won't be back.
If he does, then 10 bucks says it will only be to post more nonsense and ignore the stuff that's already been pointed out to him.
Yep, the "best" we can expect from Gardum is a classic fringe reset.