Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Sat Feb 06, 2016 2:44 pm  

Question: When the IMAX team joined the shuttle to film work carried out on the Hubble Space Telescope (on this mission the shuttle flew higher than it's usual "safe" orbiting altitude) - how many SECONDS did they say their film stock could tolerate exposure to ambient radiation levels before they were forced to barricade it behind water tanks?

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Sat Feb 06, 2016 2:50 pm  

roofaldo2 wrote:

Yeah, an investigation request in 2015 at a point in time where Russia are basically doing the Saddam Hussein/South Park thing of "Hey guy, don't look over here, look over there"

If the USSR had made these allegations back in 1969 when the Cold War was still in full swing, then maybe they'd have a little more weight to them.

Oh, I get it - the Russians are now the bad guys.

Besides, I hardly think the Soviets were likely to rock the boat given that one of the worst famines in living memory had forced them to grovel to the Americans for enough grain to feed their starving millions.

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Sat Feb 06, 2016 3:07 pm  

Characteristic "fogging" effect of radiation on film.



This is what you might expect to see when 800ASA film stock is exposed to the levels of radiation emitted by a CAT scanner.

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Sat Feb 06, 2016 3:14 pm  

Jarrah White's excellent and exhaustive investigation (part one of ten) into the HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS deaths of astronauts Gus Grissom, Roger Chaffee, Ed White and pad safety supervisor Thomas Ronald Barron (and spouse). Suffice to say A LOT of people at NASA are telling some very big LIES.

Jarrah White's excellent and exhaustive investigation (part one of ten) into the HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS deaths of astronauts Gus Grissom, Roger Chaffee, Ed White and pad safety supervisor Thomas Ronald Barron (and spouse). Suffice to say A LOT of people at NASA are telling some very big LIES.

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Sat Feb 06, 2016 3:21 pm  

Question. Whilst looking into this my attention was drawn to the question of oxygen supply for two men staying on the moon for 3 days. Looking at diving equipment. The very best Eg for breathing equipment using pure oxygen can give is around 5 hours with a weight of about 20kg, not bad, if using this equipment on the moon however you would have a mass of over half a tonne. Diagrams of the LEM show an oxygen tank, and a separate liquid oxygen tank. To keep oxygen liquid even in space, requires some serious cooling equipment, and a good electricity supply, which I see no sign of or any mention of. Maybe someone could explain or clarify the anecdote of this serious matter.

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Sat Feb 06, 2016 3:54 pm  

So if the Soviets, who just about everybody accepts were ahead of the US in terms of rocketry, lost NINE ASTRONAUTS before Gagarin made orbit (and we only have their word on this) - is it reasonable to accept that the US could manage to successfully complete all but one Moon mission - with even the crew Apollo XIII crew returning safely?

Bear in mind that compared with a "simple" mission to orbit the earth - landing and retrieving astronauts on and from the moon respectively is several orders of magnitude more difficult.

And let us not forget than the LEM had NEVER even been TESTED under similar conditions.

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Sat Feb 06, 2016 3:56 pm  

FLAT STANLEY wrote:

Question. Whilst looking into this my attention was drawn to the question of oxygen supply for two men staying on the moon for 3 days. Looking at diving equipment. The very best Eg for breathing equipment using pure oxygen can give is around 5 hours with a weight of about 20kg, not bad, if using this equipment on the moon however you would have a mass of over half a tonne. Diagrams of the LEM show an oxygen tank, and a separate liquid oxygen tank. To keep oxygen liquid even in space, requires some serious cooling equipment, and a good electricity supply, which I see no sign of or any mention of. Maybe someone could explain or clarify the anecdote of this serious matter.

They would have needed to store a small quantity of oxygen. But a re-breather/scrubber solves the problem of carrying large quantities. Still, you need a fair bit of juice to drive it.

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Sat Feb 06, 2016 4:04 pm  

FLAT STANLEY wrote:

Can anybody explain why the American flag has no shadow please.

Yes I can.
The flag is stuck in a slight depression left to right and so because of a slight ridge the shadow can't be seen.
This is fooking easy!
Do you think the moon's surface is a flat plane?
I suppose YOU would!
Your analytical skills are SHOCKING!!!!

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Sat Feb 06, 2016 4:15 pm  

FLAT STANLEY wrote: Question. Whilst looking into this my attention was drawn to the question of oxygen supply for two men staying on the moon for 3 days. Looking at diving equipment. The very best Eg for breathing equipment using pure oxygen can give is around 5 hours with a weight of about 20kg, not bad, if using this equipment on the moon however you would have a mass of over half a tonne. Diagrams of the LEM show an oxygen tank, and a separate liquid oxygen tank. To keep oxygen liquid even in space, requires some serious cooling equipment, and a good electricity supply, which I see no sign of or any mention of. Maybe someone could explain or clarify the anecdote of this serious matter. No. The technical information of how the spacecraft / landers supported life is exhaustively available. Therefore what you need to do is to read them, and then if you can, point out why you don't believe them, or if they are scientifically incorrect, or whatever. You haven't read a word of any of it, clearly. But here's a clue: the equipment RECYCLED oxygen. Did you really think they took a week or two's worth of 24/7 oxygen bottles for 3 up with them? As a favour, here's a kids' guide to how they escaped from the Apollo 13 emergency, but it tells you a lot, in easy bites, of how the systems work. If they hadn't been able to fix the recycler then they would have died, precisely because of not carrying a vast supply of oxygen to breathe. Enjoy http://www.howequipmentworks.com/apollo_13/ If you want all the detailed techy stuff: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-LMdocs.html

FLAT STANLEY wrote: Question. Whilst looking into this my attention was drawn to the question of oxygen supply for two men staying on the moon for 3 days. Looking at diving equipment. The very best Eg for breathing equipment using pure oxygen can give is around 5 hours with a weight of about 20kg, not bad, if using this equipment on the moon however you would have a mass of over half a tonne. Diagrams of the LEM show an oxygen tank, and a separate liquid oxygen tank. To keep oxygen liquid even in space, requires some serious cooling equipment, and a good electricity supply, which I see no sign of or any mention of. Maybe someone could explain or clarify the anecdote of this serious matter. No. The technical information of how the spacecraft / landers supported life is exhaustively available. Therefore what you need to do is to read them, and then if you can, point out why you don't believe them, or if they are scientifically incorrect, or whatever. You haven't read a word of any of it, clearly. But here's a clue: the equipment RECYCLED oxygen. Did you really think they took a week or two's worth of 24/7 oxygen bottles for 3 up with them? As a favour, here's a kids' guide to how they escaped from the Apollo 13 emergency, but it tells you a lot, in easy bites, of how the systems work. If they hadn't been able to fix the recycler then they would have died, precisely because of not carrying a vast supply of oxygen to breathe. Enjoy http://www.howequipmentworks.com/apollo_13/ If you want all the detailed techy stuff: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-LMdocs.html

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Sat Feb 06, 2016 4:21 pm  

TheButcher wrote:

It wasn't aimed at you, just a general observation.

Why is it flawed? Show me where the flaws are. Show me a conspiracy theorist that isn't any longer. Show me a conspiracy theorist that has accepted evidence that goes against their own ideas. I've never come across any. There may be some somewhere, I'd be interested to see them if they exist.

You are looking at one. I've changed my mind countless times on issues such as the Kennedy assassination and 9/11. A good example would be the "Lyndon Johnson did it" argument which emerged in the late nineties. At the time it seemed plausible and I bought into a good deal of it. But as evidence against the theory accumulated I could no longer support it.

I mean, before you put forward this argument (which isn't your own) did you check to see whether it is true? I suspect not.