Author Topic: Gardum's thread  (Read 3598 times)

Offline smartcooky

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1410
Re: Gardum's thread
« Reply #30 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.
► What you can assert without evidence, I can dismiss without evidence
► When you argue with idiots you risk being dragged down to their level and beaten with experience.
►"Conspiracism is a shortcut to the illusion of erudition

Offline gillianren

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1486
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Gardum's thread
« Reply #31 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.
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline Geordie

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 97
  • Suspendisse enim veni; remaneat cognitio
Re: Gardum's thread
« Reply #32 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.
.           She's on fire\  And she burns through the night at the speed of light\
             She's on fire\  With the heat of the beat right beneath her feet\
              She's on fire\  And the name of the game is to fuel her flame\
               She's on fire, fire, fire, fire, fire!

Offline raven

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1233
Re: Gardum's thread
« Reply #33 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.

Offline smartcooky

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1410
Re: Gardum's thread
« Reply #34 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!
► What you can assert without evidence, I can dismiss without evidence
► When you argue with idiots you risk being dragged down to their level and beaten with experience.
►"Conspiracism is a shortcut to the illusion of erudition

Offline JayUtah

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2485
    • Clavius
Re: Gardum's thread
« Reply #35 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.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Gardum

  • Mercury
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: Gardum's thread
« Reply #36 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.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2017, 06:13:44 PM by Gardum »

Offline Trebor

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
Re: Gardum's thread
« Reply #37 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.

Offline Ranb

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 115
Re: Gardum's thread
« Reply #38 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?
« Last Edit: September 08, 2017, 09:05:55 PM by Ranb »

Offline bknight

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2157
Re: Gardum's thread
« Reply #39 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.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline Geordie

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 97
  • Suspendisse enim veni; remaneat cognitio
Re: Gardum's thread
« Reply #40 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?
« Last Edit: September 08, 2017, 10:35:59 PM by Geordie »
.           She's on fire\  And she burns through the night at the speed of light\
             She's on fire\  With the heat of the beat right beneath her feet\
              She's on fire\  And the name of the game is to fuel her flame\
               She's on fire, fire, fire, fire, fire!

Offline smartcooky

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1410
Re: Gardum's thread
« Reply #41 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.

► What you can assert without evidence, I can dismiss without evidence
► When you argue with idiots you risk being dragged down to their level and beaten with experience.
►"Conspiracism is a shortcut to the illusion of erudition

Offline smartcooky

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1410
Re: Gardum's thread
« Reply #42 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 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
► What you can assert without evidence, I can dismiss without evidence
► When you argue with idiots you risk being dragged down to their level and beaten with experience.
►"Conspiracism is a shortcut to the illusion of erudition

Offline Gardum

  • Mercury
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: Gardum's thread
« Reply #43 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 ?


Offline smartcooky

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1410
Re: Gardum's thread
« Reply #44 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

????
► What you can assert without evidence, I can dismiss without evidence
► When you argue with idiots you risk being dragged down to their level and beaten with experience.
►"Conspiracism is a shortcut to the illusion of erudition