Author Topic: The Absence of Airlocks  (Read 19640 times)

Offline jr Knowing

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 127
Re: The Absence of Airlocks
« Reply #75 on: September 09, 2019, 09:33:32 PM »
Hi Jay,

Bezos says, "we as humanity, pulled that moon landing way forward, out of sequence, from where it should have been" (0:20 -0:30 of the video)

Time Warp:A hypothetical discontinuity in the flow of time that would move events from one time period to another.

Textbook. Plain and simple. And absolute nonsense to explain the legitimacy of the moon missions.

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3550
    • Clavius
Re: The Absence of Airlocks
« Reply #76 on: September 09, 2019, 09:34:59 PM »
...instead, you turn to subjective, wishy washy 'evidence'.

Indeed, he's in hog heaven now that he can discuss something that's a matter of opinion instead of something that requires him to know the material.  I'm pretty sure I know what Jeff Bezos is saying, and I agree with his sentiment in the way I think it applies to our industry.  But as long as Jr Knowing gets to say, as a matter of his irrefutable opinion, that Bezos is claiming Apollo had to have been the product of some freak time warp, he gets to avoid having his head handed to him, as usual, over the facts.  If he wants to argue that way, it's his business.  But where it really hits the skids is where he assiduously avoids admitting he simply got the facts wrong.  That's what reveals it as nothing but a shameful ego-reinforcement exercise.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Von_Smith

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 80
Re: The Absence of Airlocks
« Reply #77 on: September 09, 2019, 09:38:36 PM »
Hi Everyone,

First off, Mako88sb asks what it will take to convince me the Apollo missions were legit. To be clear, I am not 100 percent convinced they were hoaxed. As I have pointed out in the past, I believe the visuals, ie photos and films were faked. I am confident in my mind they were faked (and I am pretty certain of who some of the individuals that were involved). But fake photos don't necessarily mean the missions were faked. My stance currently is the photos/films are fake but I am unsure whether the missions actually took place. It is a bit of a stupid stance given if the pictures were faked, odds are the missions were faked too. But I have doubts. Some of the answers on this forum, for instance, have at least shown a plausibility of some things I thought were dubious. I think what is important here, people need to respect the thoughts of others, how much you may disagree with them. As far as I know, no one has a monopoly on truth.

Case in point, many of you guys profess to know everything about these missions and their scientific underpinnings. Well here is Jeff Bezos, who clearly knows, I would think, more about the complexities and issues of putting a man on the moon then anyone here, looking straight into Michael Collins eyes telling him the Apollo missions should have been impossible. He says it to him three times in two minutes. (he starts by clearing his throat at the .15 second mark. lol ) He then follows that up by saying even today we still haven't figured out many of the processes to get a man to the moon.  But instead of saying the missions didn't occur, he comes up with some bizarre gibberish to rationalize the missions occurred. He literally argues the Apollo missions were in some time warp in which the Apollo program was able to jump forward in time, use future technology, jettison the technology, and then go back in time. Absolute nonsense. But this is how he rationalizes the missions occurred. (This is not unlike astronaut Don Pettit (longest serving US astronaut) rationalization that "NASA destroyed all the technology".) Why? Because, given his intimate knowledge of the subject, he can't come up with a logical coherent explanation on how NASA accomplished those missions 50 years ago.  He literally says "we have to wait for technology to catch up". WTF? This from the man spending billions to put a man on the moon. These comments should be very sobering to everyone who thinks thinks they understand what happen in these Apollo missions. People should really take a step back and digest what he is saying. The only way he felt these missions occurred is because they were in a time warp. Tell me. What is more ridiculous? The Apollo missions were faked or the Apollo program was in a time warp and really traveled into the future?   



Does Jeff Bezos think the Apollo missions were faked?  Because unless he does, I don't see your point here.

Also, why are you changing the subject?

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3550
    • Clavius
Re: The Absence of Airlocks
« Reply #78 on: September 09, 2019, 09:41:10 PM »
Bezos says, "we as humanity, pulled that moon landing way forward, out of sequence, from where it should have been"

Yes.  He's saying Apollo was an anachronism, and explains how.  He's not saying the only way it could have happened for real is if we had pulled technology literally out of the future.  In fact, he explicitly says near the end of the video that we are still basing much of what we do in space engineering on technology that NASA invented in the 1960s, but we get to use it in a more refined form.  Do more than cherry-pick.

Quote
Textbook. Plain and simple.  And absolute nonsense to explain the legitimacy of the moon missions.

Because you need it to seem like absolute nonsense so that your claims of fraud aren't so ridiculous in contrast.  Again, I've never seen someone go to such absurd lengths to foist an interpretation onto someone else.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2019, 09:44:54 PM by JayUtah »
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3550
    • Clavius
Re: The Absence of Airlocks
« Reply #79 on: September 09, 2019, 09:43:31 PM »
Also, why are you changing the subject?

Obviously to distract from the abject and arrogant ignorance he displayed when trying to discuss heat transfer.  Most conspiracy theorists will bluff what facts they can.  But when that doesn't work, they pivot the discussion to something that is either entirely a matter of opinion or judgment, or to allegations of fact that can never be ascertained.  This is so they can pretend that their position has some sort of intellectual merit.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline jr Knowing

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 127
Re: The Absence of Airlocks
« Reply #80 on: September 09, 2019, 09:50:48 PM »
Hi Von Smith,

I am not quite sure if he thinks it is faked or not. But the rational he uses to suggest they were real is nonsensical. The question is why he uses this rational. He is not some guy off the street. He is intimately acquainted with the issues of getting a man to the moon. For him to say, we have been "waiting for technology to catch up" because the missions took place "out of sequence" in man's evolution is bizarre to say the least. If it was some guy posting that on this forum he would be labeled a crank at the very least. But this is the guy behind perhaps the next mission (or first :)  ) to the moon.

Offline AtomicDog

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 368
Re: The Absence of Airlocks
« Reply #81 on: September 09, 2019, 09:52:54 PM »
Hi Von Smith,

I am not quite sure if he thinks it is faked or not. But the rational he uses to suggest they were real is nonsensical. The question is why he uses this rational. He is not some guy off the street. He is intimately acquainted with the issues of getting a man to the moon. For him to say, we have been "waiting for technology to catch up" because the missions took place "out of sequence" in man's evolution is bizarre to say the least. If it was some guy posting that on this forum he would be labeled a crank at the very least. But this is the guy behind perhaps the next mission (or first :)  ) to the moon.

I thought you were arguing about airlocks and vacuum?
"There is no belief, however foolish, that will not gather its faithful adherents who will defend it to the death." - Isaac Asimov

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3550
    • Clavius
Re: The Absence of Airlocks
« Reply #82 on: September 09, 2019, 09:59:11 PM »
I am not quite sure if he thinks it is faked or not.

Since he concedes he bases his endeavors on what NASA did in the 1960s, what would a reasonable conclusion be?

Quote
But the rational he uses to suggest they were real is nonsensical.

The word is "rationale," and it's not his rationale.  It's yours.  You've taken what he's said and applied a bizarre, overly literal interpretation to it.  No, I'm not a linguist.  But my spouse is a lawyer, a profession driven by properly construing statements.  And yes, jurisprudence has guidelines for interpreting statements in just such occasions as this, contained in books right here on our bookshelf.  One of the guidelines is that if both a literal and a figurative interpretation are possible, and the literal interpretation is absurd on its face, the figurative interpretation was probably intended.

Quote
The question is why he uses this rational.

No, that is not the question because it's not his rationale.  Just like you wanted "scientific" answers to your questions that were based on nonsensical pidgin-scientific assertions, you now want us to jump over the fact that you're pasting an interpretation onto Bezos' statements for the sole purpose of pretending they're nonsensical, then demand that we explain it without questioning your premises.  You aren't even willing to entertain the possibility that he's not talking about literal time travel.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2019, 10:03:06 PM by JayUtah »
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3550
    • Clavius
Re: The Absence of Airlocks
« Reply #83 on: September 09, 2019, 10:01:37 PM »
I thought you were arguing about airlocks and vacuum?

He was.  And before starting a new subject, it would have been appropriate for him to say, "I see I was wrong about how vacuum would have affected the cooling of the LM and the camera batteries."  But we get no such honesty.  He's desperately trying to pivot to a "soft" topic that doesn't have any ascertainable facts he can trip over.  Pure distraction.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline jr Knowing

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 127
Re: The Absence of Airlocks
« Reply #84 on: September 09, 2019, 10:10:38 PM »
Hi Jay and Atomic Dog,

Actually I was hoping somebody would ask me about the Apollo photos and who did them :) . (ok just kidding)

With regards to heat transferr, thanks to jfb and Bertie for taking a stab at things. Believe it or not, us non phd's do know about black-body radiation and the S-B law. And while some of the assumptions they use are different from mine, they have demonstrated it would take longer to reach extreme cold than I thought. Having said that, 2 things. 1)Many things within the cabin did not have to reach extreme temperatures to not function. According to NASA docs, for instances, many of the electronic components needed 30 F to function. (and max temp of only of 120F) 2) Many of the posters argue that it wasn't cold that was the worry but rather heat. (Which I knew many would argue prior to posting my questions.) Fair enough. But what about A13? They felt things getting colder not hotter. So either posters here are correct, and the astronauts were lying. Or the A13 Astronauts are correct and the posters here are wrong? Which is it?

Offline Von_Smith

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 80
Re: The Absence of Airlocks
« Reply #85 on: September 09, 2019, 10:23:56 PM »
Hi Von Smith,

I am not quite sure if he thinks it is faked or not. But the rational he uses to suggest they were real is nonsensical. The question is why he uses this rational. He is not some guy off the street. He is intimately acquainted with the issues of getting a man to the moon. For him to say, we have been "waiting for technology to catch up" because the missions took place "out of sequence" in man's evolution is bizarre to say the least. If it was some guy posting that on this forum he would be labeled a crank at the very least. But this is the guy behind perhaps the next mission (or first :)  ) to the moon.

You introduce Bezos as a guy who knows what he's talking about, and then turn around and insist he's talking rubbish.  Which one is it?  You can't have it both ways.

If the notion that time travel was somehow involved in Apollo technology is preposterous, then anybody who suggests it, no matter how famous or esteemed otherwise, is wrong.  So the only conclusion I could draw from your argument, even if I granted your characterization of what Bezos says in this clip, is that he doesn't actually know how NASA did it.  Which is not an argument that the missions were fake.

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3550
    • Clavius
Re: The Absence of Airlocks
« Reply #86 on: September 09, 2019, 10:28:31 PM »
Believe it or not, us non phd's do know about black-body radiation and the S-B law.

Now, perhaps, after having been spoon-fed those concepts by people here.  Earlier you were trying to compare temperatures of objects in space to temperatures in the meteorological sense, as of some congruence could be expected.  That is a tell-tale rookie mistake.  I've used and taught these concepts literally for decades.  I'm quite familiar with the misconceptions newcomers bring to the table.

Quote
Many things within the cabin did not have to reach extreme temperatures to not function.

But you've provided no justification for the premise that anything in LM would reach any specific temperature.  You've just given the layman's wrong-headed impression that vacuum would "rush in," and that this vacuum would be icy cold.

Quote
According to NASA docs, for instances, many of the electronic components needed 30 F to function.

This just commits the same error as your prior argument.  Yes, it is generally possible to discover the lowest temperature at which various Apollo equipment was expected to function.  You focus on that premise and leave alone entirely the premise that any part of the LM got to temperatures that made those limits an issue.  You know your argument is weak on that point, so you hammer the other one distractively.

Further, it has been stated several times that electronic components generate heat simply by the fact that they are passing current.  You're still arguing as if you believe there is some ambient that has an extremely low temperature, and that these components are soaking in it.  As I mentioned at least twice, the temperature-sensitive equipment can be mounted in the AEB, where it receives the full force of the sun.

Quote
Which I knew many would argue prior to posting my questions.

No, you didn't.

Quote
But what about A13? They felt things getting colder not hotter.

Because the CM is an aerodynamic vehicle, its thermal design is less forgiving.  It cannot eliminate all the conduction paths to the skin.  But more importantly, the thermal design of all the Apollo spacecraft presumed that there would be a source of heat.  I already explained this earlier, in my lengthier presentation on thermal design.  You obviously didn't read it.  There was no flight scenario contemplated in which all the spacecraft electronics would be shut off, depriving the cabin of its source of heat.  Hence the thermal design presumed that heat source as part of computing its equilibrium temperature.

As a matter of historical fact, the cabin temperature was reasonable until the astronauts covered the windows to block the sun while they slept.  Then it dropped to near freezing.  Why?  Because the solar influx was enough to maintain the temperature using the residual heat from before, when the electronics were operating.  With the windows blocked, the equilibrium of the interior surfaces was disrupted, and that affects the rate of heat flow.  The difference between influx to maintain a temperature and influx to raise to a temperature is one of the many counterintuitive things about heat transfer, and why it takes an expert to understand it properly.

Quote
So either posters here are correct, and the astronauts were lying. Or the A13 Astronauts are correct and the posters here are wrong? Which is it?

Or the ubiquitous third option:  once again you don't know what you're talking about, and are manufacturing dilemmas out of your copious ignorance.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Von_Smith

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 80
Re: The Absence of Airlocks
« Reply #87 on: September 09, 2019, 10:28:37 PM »
Hi Jay and Atomic Dog,

Actually I was hoping somebody would ask me about the Apollo photos and who did them :) . (ok just kidding)

With regards to heat transferr, thanks to jfb and Bertie for taking a stab at things. Believe it or not, us non phd's do know about black-body radiation and the S-B law. And while some of the assumptions they use are different from mine, they have demonstrated it would take longer to reach extreme cold than I thought. Having said that, 2 things. 1)Many things within the cabin did not have to reach extreme temperatures to not function. According to NASA docs, for instances, many of the electronic components needed 30 F to function. (and max temp of only of 120F) 2) Many of the posters argue that it wasn't cold that was the worry but rather heat. (Which I knew many would argue prior to posting my questions.) Fair enough. But what about A13? They felt things getting colder not hotter. So either posters here are correct, and the astronauts were lying. Or the A13 Astronauts are correct and the posters here are wrong? Which is it?

Apollo 13 wasn't running on anything near full power, so it wasn't generating as much heat as it would on a normal mission. I find it hard to believe you could dig up the factoids above and not know that.  Are you *trying* to be disingenuous? 

Offline jfb

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 296
Re: The Absence of Airlocks
« Reply #88 on: September 09, 2019, 10:36:41 PM »
Well here is Jeff Bezos, who clearly knows, I would think, more about the complexities and issues of putting a man on the moon then anyone here, looking straight into Michael Collins eyes telling him the Apollo missions should have been impossible. He says it to him three times in two minutes. (he starts by clearing his throat at the .15 second mark. lol ) He then follows that up by saying even today we still haven't figured out many of the processes to get a man to the moon.  But instead of saying the missions didn't occur, he comes up with some bizarre gibberish to rationalize the missions occurred. He literally argues the Apollo missions were in some time warp in which the Apollo program was able to jump forward in time, use future technology, jettison the technology, and then go back in time.

This is an entirely serious question - is English not your first language?  Because that’s not what Bezos is saying at all.

Quote
...in many ways it should have been impossible and they pulled it off with, you know, barely any computational power, they were still using slide rules, they couldn’t numerically model in computers a lot of these important processes like combustion inside a rocket engine which is still hard today but we can do it a little bit they didn’t have computational fluid dynamics to really [???]  to be done in a wind tunnel nothing could be done on computer so I think the reason we’ve sort of taken a hiatus maybe in part at least because we did we pulled that forward from a time when it should have been impossible and then once it was done kinda had to wait and let technology catch up...

That should be enough to get the point across.

He’s saying that what NASA managed to do was pretty incredible for the time, that they managed to do it without the tools we assume would be necessary, that they did it with slide rules and computers that were barely up to the task.  They did it by marshaling a lot of very smart people who knew how to get the most out of the tools they had, building lots and lots and lots of physical prototypes, testing the hell out of them, gathering data, building more prototypes, etc.  The reason we didn’t continue that effort is because it was very difficult and expensive - we took a break to let the technology catch up so we didn’t have to do it the hard way anymore.  It’s the same reason it took well over a decade for a GUI-driven personal computer systems to get from the Xerox Parc to the first Macintosh - the technology wasn’t quite ready yet. 

HE IS MOST EMPHATICALLY NOT TALKING ABOUT TIME TRAVEL

Just like aeronautical engineers of the 1930s and 1940s were able to make incredible advances in aviation (the Douglas DC-3, the Lockheed P-38 Lightning, the Heinkel He 178) with no computers or advanced numerical modeling.  Slide rules, scale models, wind tunnels, engine test stands, and armies of engineers can go a long way. 

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3550
    • Clavius
Re: The Absence of Airlocks
« Reply #89 on: September 09, 2019, 10:39:07 PM »
You introduce Bezos as a guy who knows what he's talking about...

More accurately, he introduces Bezos as a guy who should know what he's talking about.  But I think that was mostly just so Jr Knowing could follow that up with the sentiment that we should be humble because we're not as smart as we think, and certainly not as smart as Jeff Bezos.  It does, however, establish a premise for the more relevant claim.

Quote
...and then turn around and insist he's talking rubbish.

Yeah, it's not clear whether the claim is that Bezos really believes time travel was used, or whether that's the best explanation Bezos could come up with rather than admit Apollo was fake.  This is the sort of nonsense you get when the desperation to form any sort of mud-slinging argument takes over.

Quote
If the notion that time travel was somehow involved in Apollo technology is preposterous, then anybody who suggests it, no matter how famous or esteemed otherwise, is wrong.

Jr Knowing is trying to pit Time-Travel Apollo against Fake Apollo and point out that Fake Apollo is more plausible.  He seems to like these false-dilemma arguments.  The obvious third alternative is that Apollo was real, and that Bezos is simply pointing out that it's an anachronism in the context of what he thinks the aerospace industry could have done absent the special impetus.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams