Im extremely dissapointed in you forum!! - Page 4

Corsaire · #31 09-04-2012, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Future Raptor Ace

You sir are a complete moron! NASA was not in complete disarray when Gus Grissom (probably my favorite astronaut and I’ll get to that later) Ed Ward White (first American to do an EVA) and Roger Chaffey died; which was a sad price to pay in the goal of human exploration. What you fail to even grasp was the Apollo missions did not just come out of thin air, they were a collaboration of lessons learned in previous programs launched over the decade. The only time NASA was in complete disarray was in the late 50s when we had a failure rate of about 60% and where struggling to keep up with the Russians. That all ended in the 60s with Project Mercury. Project Mercury was to get men into space as well as orbit and teaching astronauts how to EVA and then project Gemini taught astronauts how to fly in space, how to do a rondevu and docking procedure in space, all necessary STEPS in going to the moon. Also please do not say fried, (I do think you didn’t mean harm by that statement but it is very disrespectful) you are talking about human beings who died a most gruesome death (though some say they didn’t suffer since the gases made them go unconscious and then suffocated them rather quickly and the suits protected them from major burns .. but however I did hear the cockpit recording and there were a lot of screams you hope to never hear again)!
It would seem that you do not even understand what was wrong with the command module and that is why you do not understand it did not delay the program for as long as your ignorant self might think; let me educate you! The first Apollo capsule was using very dangerous pure oxygen and I’m sure you probably don’t know this from chemistry, but pure oxygen is extremely flammable and a very dangerous gas to use. However this was something overlooked by the engineers in designing the capsule and this was the first time pure oxygen was being used. Pure oxygen wasn’t even used on Mercury or Gemini because of how dangerous it was. So now when a wire shorted in the capsule during the training exercise the spark instantly ignited. Exacerbating the situation is the fact that the capsule hatch opened inwards. Once again since I don’t think you are too intelligent in this subject you probably do not know that when you have a fire in an enclosed surface you have a rise in pressure pushing outwards on all surfaces. This outward pressure pushing against an inward opening hatch made it impossible to get the hatch door opened in time. The irony of this is Gus himself was the reason as to why NASA designed the hatch to open inwards was because, and I’m sure you are already very familiar with this and NASA history (of course you aren’t), Gus almost died when his Liberty-Bell 7 hatch blew open, after he landed in the water at the conclusion of his mission, causing his Liberty-Bell 7 capsule to sink in the ocean almost drowning him. As reason as to why he wanted and inward opening hatch is, as again I’m sure you know, when sinking in water you have an increase in pressure on the outside surfaces pushing inward … so and increase in inward pressure and an inward opening hatch make it easy to escape a sinking capsule which is why he wanted this redesign (unlike his mercury Liberty-Bell 7 capsule which had a hatch that opened outward in which would be fairly easy to open in a fire). After the Apollo 1 accident NASA and all the engineers at North American did a complete overhaul on the Apollo command module, changing wiring, modules, as well as changing the oxidizer system and the hatch making it open outwards like it was previously on Mercury and Gemini. That is all they had to redesign, they did not change any of the Saturn V’s boosters and or launch systems which is the bulk of the design. Really they just reconfigured the command module; they didn’t have to start from scratch redesigning it instead just redesign various parts deemed unsafe. Furthermore many people such as my hero Gene Kranz claim this redesign of the command module to be something that saved the whole program and that if it wasn’t for the redesign we would have never made it to the moon.
Once again you prove your illusion of knowledge and you prove yourself wrong in your example. What you said happens ALL THE TIME, more test pilots die in simulations and tests than you can shake a stick at the company is tasked with issuing a redesign! Sure the company doesn’t like this and rather this not happen but prototypes are risky; especially in those days when you don’t have computer simulations and software such as CAD, CAE, FEA, and CFD! (Computer Aided Design, Computer Aided Engineering, Finite Element Analysis, and Computational Fluid Dynamics …. I gave you all the terms look them up and will be happy to answer questions you have on them) You should also research Edwards Air Force Base and see how many test pilots died there, as for that was and still is the premiere place for any prototype /flight testing that is done in the Aerospace business, flying/working/testing simulations for prototypes. Also look up F-104 Starfighter (which also was known to fly at Edwards) also known as the “Widowmaker” … it was called that for a reason! Neil Armstrong himself almost died in a simulation flight testing the lunar lander … but he ejected seconds before the crash and it is said if he ejected half a second later he would have died due to his parachute not opening in time! Also know that Neil and a lot of his fellow astronaut colleagues were test pilots at Edwards; Neil had some close calls on his life there testing aircraft. I really don’t understand how you can know so little and jump to these conclusions and have the nerve to argue! Then you have the nerve to hijack my thread with your stupid lies/ignorance, I do not take that lightly!
No they weren’t worried about their lives, death is a part of life for test pilots as I mentioned before and guess where Gus was before he was selected to be an astronaut … that’s right Edwards Air Force Base, they were more worried about the mission as for they viewed the mission above their own lives; and you have taken that picture completely out of context! They were praying for the success of their mission possibly even reciting Shepard’s prayer very common among astronauts after Alan Shepard said it and still common today “Dear lord, please don’t let me fuck this up!” Also you said going to the moon wasn’t risky before; it seems you are going back on that…?

Yes you finally got something right, Gus did say that! There was a recording of the cockpit on youtube but I can no longer find it; Gus said that if I remember correctly 7 minutes before the fire started (irrelevant to my point .. just a statement). However what he said was a frustrated joke, he was pissed that COM was horrible and he couldn’t hear mission control! Similar uses, in different context, of that frustrated joke are used all the time in everyday life; it doesn’t mean on is serious. An example; “Jimmy how are you going to get to the fourth grade if you still can’t sit still?” It does mean who ever said that doubts Jimmy will make it to the fourth grade!

Gene Kranz also said that but he was having a hard time with NASA management at the time. Like what happen in 1986 with Shuttle Challenger NASA management just wanted things done and done quick and were not listing to their engineers which pissed a lot of people off including Gene Kranz. Management was taking risks to speed things up and sometimes you get away with those risks and sometimes you have to pay for them, Apollo 1, Challenger, and Columbia!
This keeps going over dimwitted head … it took a whole decade of lessons starting with Project Mercury, things did not just happen overnight even though to ignorant people like you it seems that way. And you could take what I’m saying to bank as for I am taught by and have the honor of knowing professors who were in the industry at the time. It was a decade long chronicle of R&D, sometimes by trial and error, and then design and manufacturing.
One thing you should know about Neil is he was always shy and never liked a lot of attention. Even when he was a test pilot, long before he was an astronaut. Even after his Gemini mission he tried to elude cameras, this was long before he was selected to be the first man on the moon because Gus Grissom was the one who was most likely going to get the task … up until he passed away on Apollo 1, that is just Neil’s character and if you knew anything about the man it would be obvious to you! Second these men are astronauts, test pilots, not actors or celebrities … they are not used to all the attention they are getting and not used to being in the spotlight and on camera like that so of course they are nervous! Hell you might ask why they are nervous for a measly interview and are able to land on the moon? Well I’m not a physiologist but sometimes even when you tell yourself there is no reason to be nervous you cannot control the rush of adrenaline your body gets. These men trained to fly spacecraft and aircraft, not how to be masters of interviews; they are clearly out of their norm and doing something they are not accustomed to! Hell there are some celebrities and musicians who are great on stage and in front of the camera but freeze/get shy during interviews … maybe even Alizee is one of them! Your video does not prove any point!
Lastly how come space agencies and observatorys from around the world analyze the remains we left on the moon to see how objects last in a vacuum and all claim to monitor the Apollo landing sights with none claiming they can’t find anything? Why is that? Also how come a satellite from another country (I think Japan) captured an image of the flag on the moon still standing there today (though it has been faded white) .. why is that? How come top scientists from around the world all say we landed on the moon and its idiots like you who are not in the STEM profession who say otherwise? You say there is no evidence that we landed there … you are a fool because the only evidence missing is evidence that we haven't landed there! Nothing more to say to you because I have given you more time than you deserved, it is not my fault if you don’t want to seek the information; because it is all there! “The enemy of knowledge is not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge!” – Stephen Hawking~

Unlike you Junkmale, I couldnt retain my self control and show restraint though I respect the hell out of you for retaining yours. What Corsaire said is so complelty wrong that it just has to be corrected!
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w

oNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/> <w

ontFlipMirrorIndents/> <w:OverrideTableStyleHps/> </w:Compatibility> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->

I kept this for future references... I wouldn't want you to go and edit out all the factual errors you made.

Now

Hey JM,

Thanks for acknowledging that you did insult me personally, and that you removed the offending comment, but certainly not because it could have offended me. Classy stuff that Neil would have been proud of, I’m sure.

FRA,

I am sorry, but I didn’t read your last post in its entirety. I will not discuss this if you display such disorganisation in your thoughts. I would ask that you produce coherent arguments and that you keep it clear and concise enough so that anyone interested (well, me, I suppose) could reply. I am well aware of your endeavours and credentials, so, there is no need to try to show how much details you think you know about the Apollo program. Actually, you have already made quite a few crude factual errors in what you posted, so, I would advise sticking to what you really know. Also, when possible, please quote from people or from documented sources. Lastly, a little more politeness would be appreciated.

Here are my claims so far:

- I refute your claim that Neil’s specific achievements, on their own, are relevant to the whole of humanity or that they are so exceptional that they could not have been realised by any other astronaut trained to perform the same tasks. As I have explained, being the first to do something when it is an organisation that selected you for the job does not make you a hero. It might show that you are good or exceptional at what you do, but that is about it. Neil is an icon, a mass media made image, and worshiping images is about as controlled as one can be. So, you want to admire Neil and draw inspiration from his career, sure, but to ask that the whole of humanity worships your icon is going a little too far.
I suppose we have discussed this enough, and since you haven’t provided any substance to prove you point, I would say you are wrong about your assessment of the relevance and importance of Neil’s contribution to the world.

- Neil is in a neurotic state during the Post Flight Press Conference. He loses his voice, he loses his composure, he has blanks that last seconds, he exhibits typical signs of sadness, anxiety and stress. That man is emotionally unstable and that is not what a highly train Apollo mission Commander should behave like while confronting any moderately stressful situation. If you don’t agree with my description, locate a psychologist somewhere and do ask how he/she analyses the footage. Your suggestion that a man that has gone through public scrutiny to the extent Neil did before the PFPC would fall in pieces in front of an audience is not convincing me. To prove the point, here he is, quite at ease, while in front of the President and millions of tv viewers:

Why does Neil act so strangely during the PFPC? Well, I would say he exhibits all the behaviour of a man who has something to hide, but that would be speculative. My point is that, at that very moment, this man shows signs of weaknesses that are especially detrimental to any critical mission.

- Gus Grissom, the crew and many others were extremely critical of the state of the program. This was corroborated by their Flight Director after the accident. The prayer picture I posted is exactly what I said it was. If you have any evidence that the prayer picture, the “how are we going to get to the moon...” statement or the lemon story did not show signs of distress, state your evidence. I am not interested by your interpretations based on erroneous facts. You need to show evidence.

Here is another proof I can add to what I already provided. From Deborah Cadbury’s book ‘Space Race‘, page 308;

‘The press had caught a whiff of trouble. What was wrong, they wanted to know. Grissom explained, ‘I’ve got misgivings. We’ve had problems before, but these have been coming in bushelfuls. Frankly, I think this mission has a pretty damn slim chance of flying its full fourteen days.’

And there are plenty more quotes to show if you still want to debate this point.

- The program was in disarray after the Apollo 1 accident. This is well know. If you have evidence to the contrary, please show references from reputable sources. Your recollection on that specific point is completely wrong. You should avoid disserting on subjects you might not really know well.

- Considering the complexity of the tasks at hand, the progress that the Apollo program made in the 2.5 years between the Apollo 1 disaster and the Apollo 11 success is so ridiculously bogus, it boggles the mind. If you do not agree with this, get the opinion of anyone who has worked in the higher echelons of any multidisciplinary project which lasted more than a few years and employed more than a few hundred people which also required collaborations with more than 20 universities and firms. If you can find such a person, multiply the complexity of what he/she will explain to you by a 1000 and try to imagine how you can really turn a program like Apollo upside down in a few months so that a complete lack of rigor and professionalism (documented by Kranz and others) can be switched into a streak of successive successful missions which culminated in the alleged moon landing 2.5 years later. Do you actually comprehend the level of complexity involved here? There is no magical recipe. The malpractice was generalised and to solve this you need time and lots of it.

- There is absolutely no physical evidence that can be found here on Earth that can prove a single man has walked on the moon. Here, you should provide physical evidence originating from the moon that could only have been collected and returned to earth by a man. Obviously, you will have understood by now that if I do not believe in the Apollo program’s reality, I will not be satisfied with results of experiments supposedly done on the moon by astronauts. Also, you probably understood that I do not believe that any of the alleged artefacts left on the moon prove that a man walked on the moon. If you don’t know why I am so stringent with my request, I can explain. So, what physical evidence do we have, here on Earth, that a man has walked on the moon?

Go ahead and discuss these specific points if you will, but please do follow the instructions above so we can debate logically and productively.

As for the hijacking of your thread, I think you are mistaking this place for a blog or a Webpage. This is a forum which is normally used for discussing issues and you made an accusation concerning the lack of caring over Neil’s achievements. If you are emotionally affected so much that you can’t debate properly while keeping polite, I suggest you don’t post about this sort of topics in the future.

Future Raptor Ace · #32 09-05-2012, 01:15 AM

Quote:

I am sorry, but I didn’t read your last post in its entirety

Well that is your problem right there, read it again! I will buff out my typing so it will be more clear and re post it so you have no excuses!
The only errors I made was in my many typos (I am horrid at typing) besides that my info is 100% correct and you need to redo your research. Like Azhiri's father I too am in the aerospace field and like you stated you know im very knowledgeable in the field .. A LOT more than you and unlike you I have the credentials to prove it. As for my evidence I have showed tons of evidence but all I see from you is dis-evidence so to speak! If you want me to make more of a fool out of you then I suggest you get the hell off my thread with you bullshit lies! And I cant be polite to someone who does not know what they are talking about and in the process calls an amazing person and an entire organization a liar ... you don't deserve nice!

Quote:

So, what physical evidence do we have, here on Earth, that a man has walked on the moon?

Should I even answer this ................... do i have to spoon feed you? Moon rocks you dummy .............!

Edit:

*Hopefully corrected post with addendums .. please read!

Well now that’s that .. it is done and hopefully it is all grammatically correct .. probably not but I tried! You don’t have to worry about me ever changing this because everything I said is completely correct and happy that is seems to be assertive and able put you in your place. PLEASE REREAD MY POST AND ADDEMNDUMS IN ITS HOPEFULLY CORRECTED ENTIRETY AND LEARN A THING OR TWO .. because I pay over $15,000 a year for this knowledge and I am taking the time to give it to you for free; you should be thanking me! With that I bid you good night .. stick to what you know and it is surely not Astronautics nor Aeronautics!

You sir are a complete moron! NASA was not in complete disarray when Gus Grissom (probably my favorite astronaut and I’ll get to that later) Edward White (first American to do an EVA) and Roger Chaffey died; which was a sad price to pay in the goal of human exploration. What you fail to even grasp is the Apollo missions did not just come out of thin air, they were a collaboration of lessons learned in previous programs launched over the decade. The only time NASA was in complete disarray was in the late 50s when we had a failure rate of about 60% and where struggling to keep up with the Russians. That all ended in the 60s with Project Mercury which got men into space as well as orbit and teaching them how to do an EVA. Then after the conclusion of Project mercury came Project Gemini which taught astronauts how to fly in space, how to do a rondevu and a docking procedure, all necessary STEPS in going to the moon. Also please do not say fried, (I do think you didn’t mean harm by that statement but it is very disrespectful) you are talking about human beings who died a most gruesome death (though some say they didn’t suffer since the gases made them go unconscious and then suffocated them rather quickly and the suits protected them from major burns .. but however I did hear the cockpit recording and there were a lot of screams you hope to never hear again)!
It would seem that you do not even understand what was wrong with the command module and that is why you do not understand why it did not delay the program for as long as your ignorant self might think; let me educate you! The first Apollo capsule was using very dangerous pure oxygen and I’m sure you probably don’t know this from chemistry, but pure oxygen is extremely flammable and a very dangerous gas to use. However this was something overlooked by the engineers *Addendum 1* *why it was over looked I do not know, engineers we makes mistakes too* in designing the capsule and this was the first time pure oxygen was being used on a capsule. So now when a wire shorted in the capsule during the training exercise the spark instantly ignited the oxygen causing a massive internal fire. Exacerbating the situation was the fact that the capsule hatch opened inwards. Once again since I don’t think you are too intelligent in this subject you probably do not know that when you have a fire in an enclosed surface you have a rise in pressure pushing outwards on all surfaces. This outward pressure pushing against an inward opening hatch made it impossible to get the hatch door opened in time. The irony of this is Gus himself was the reason as to why NASA designed the hatch to open inwards was because, and I’m sure you are already very familiar with this (of course you aren’t), Gus almost died when his Liberty-Bell 7 hatch blew open after he landed in the water at the conclusion of his Mercury mission causing his Liberty-Bell 7 capsule to sink in the ocean almost drowning him. A reason as to why he wanted and inward opening hatch was because when sinking in water you have an increase in pressure on the outside surfaces pushing inward … so and increase in inward pressure and an inward opening hatch make it easy to escape a sinking capsule. *Addendum 2* *This is why he wanted this redesign and was very persistent with NASA management to get it!* His mercury Liberty-Bell 7 capsule which like said before had a hatch that opened outward which would be fairly easy to open in a fire but hard to open in a sinking scenario. After the Apollo 1 accident NASA and all the engineers at North American did a complete overhaul on the Apollo command module, changing wiring, modules, as well as changing the oxidizer system and the hatch making it open outwards like it was previously on Mercury and Gemini. *Addendum 3* *And no the redesign was not super complex (remember I am an engineer you are talking to so I know what complex is, you do not) as for reasons I will state in the next sentence.* All they had to do for the most part was RECONFIGURE, they did not change any of the Saturn V’s boosters and or launch systems which is the bulk of the design. *Addendum 4* *The bulk of any rocket design or any airplane design for that matter is not the command module/cockpit. The bulk of the design goes into Propulsions (because most of a rockets mass is fuel), Flight Dynamics, Stability and Control, Aerodynamics, and lastly Flight Systems/Avionics, life support systems etc in that exact order of importance. Also know I have taken several courses on all those topics (minus flight dynamics in which I am taking now) so if you want to argue I would look forward to it! And in those days they did not have glass cockpits and advanced avionics like we do today so really there was not too too much work to be done in flight systems and avionics.* Really they just reconfigured the command module; they didn’t have to start from scratch redesigning it entirely instead just redesign various parts deemed unsafe. Furthermore many people such as my hero Gene Kranz claimed the redesign of the command module to be something that saved the whole program and that if it wasn’t for it we would have never made it to the moon.
Quote:
<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="width:100.0%;mso-cellspacing:0in;mso-yfti-tbllook:1184;mso-padding-alt: 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes"> <td style="border:inset 1.0pt;mso-border-alt:inset windowtext .75pt; padding:4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt"> This narrative is so improbable, it is preposterous. This is like a company who accidently kills a test pilot in a fire in the cockpit during a simulation that was supposed to be a test to make sure that the first prototype of a plane could later be tested so it can attempt to fly 3 km, and, 2.5 years later, the same company transports passengers across the ocean routinely. The most ridiculous Hollywood scripts require less suspension of disbelief than this fable.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> Once again you prove your illusion of knowledge and you prove yourself wrong in your example. What you said happens ALL THE TIME, more test pilots die in simulations and tests than you can shake a stick at! Once this happens, in where a test pilot dies, the company is tasked with issuing a redesign *Addendum 5* *analyzing what went wrong and what needs to be improved … rarely do they crumple up a piece of paper and start from scratch as for that would be poor design engineering! Sure the company doesn’t like the fact that their design failed and someone’s life was lost because of it but rather this not happen … however prototypes are very very risky;* especially in those days when you don’t have computer simulations and software such as CAD, CAE, FEA, and CFD! (Computer Aided Design, Computer Aided Engineering, Finite Element Analysis, and Computational Fluid Dynamics …. I gave you all the terms look them up and I will be happy to answer questions you have on them) You should also research Edwards Air Force Base and see how many test pilots died there, as for that was and still is the predominate place for any prototype /flight testing that was/is done in the Aerospace business. Flying/working/testing/simulations for prototypes/you name it, are and were done at Edwards. Also look up F-104 Starfighter (which also was known to fly at Edwards) also known as the “Widowmaker” … it was called that for a reason! *Addendum 6* *My Aerodynamics Professor talked about it all the time. It was a bird so revolutionary in its day as for it was one of the first Mach 2 fighters. She was the ultimate example of thin airfoil theory (much like the Supermarine Spitfire is the ultimate example for elliptical airfoil theory) as for her wings were so thin that grounds crew would sometimes slice their heads on her leading edge. I forgot the NACA airfoil number for her as for if I remembered I would show you a picture of the airfoil but blast … ill look in my text book later and see if there is a picture on how thin it is. She was truly innovative in her day and was the dream of any test pilot to fly as shown in Junkemale’s comedic video … but however she was extremely dangerous and every pilot who flew her knew that! Gus was someone who flew in her and so did Neil …. I could name countless other NASA elites who flew in her but I’ll stop here. Now that im done with a little F-104 history rant I hope you enjoyed it!* Neil Armstrong himself almost died while in a simulation flight testing the lunar lander … but he ejected seconds before the crash and it is said if he ejected half a second later he would have died due to his parachute not opening in time! Also know that Neil and a lot of his fellow astronaut colleagues were test pilots at Edwards (I mentioned this is my little addendum); Neil had some close calls on his life there testing aircraft at Edwards which was common place there. I really don’t understand how you can know so little and jump to these conclusions and have the nerve to argue! Then you have the nerve to hijack my thread with your stupid lies/ignorance, I do not take that lightly!
Quote:
<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="width:100.0%;mso-cellspacing:0in;mso-yfti-tbllook:1184;mso-padding-alt: 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes"> <td style="border:inset 1.0pt;mso-border-alt:inset windowtext .75pt; padding:4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt"> Actually, the Apollo 1 crew were so worried for their lives and so critical of the program that they presented this picture to their manager... a few months before they fried to death:
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> No they weren’t worried about their lives, death is a part of life (No a way of life) for test pilots as I mentioned before and guess where Gus was before he was selected to be an astronaut … that’s right Edwards Air Force Base. They were more worried about the mission as for they viewed the mission above their own lives; and you have taken that picture completely out of context! They were praying for the success of their mission possibly even reciting Shepard’s prayer very common among astronauts after Alan Shepard said it and still common today “Dear lord, please don’t let me fuck this up!” Also you said going to the moon wasn’t risky before; it seems you are going back on that…?
Quote:
<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="width:100.0%;mso-cellspacing:0in;mso-yfti-tbllook:1184;mso-padding-alt: 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes"> <td style="border:inset 1.0pt;mso-border-alt:inset windowtext .75pt; padding:4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt"> “I said, how are we gonna get to the moon if we can't talk between two or three buildings”
-A frustrated Grissom during the test that took his life.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> Yes you finally got something right, Gus did say that! There was a recording of the cockpit on youtube but I can no longer find it; Gus said that if I remember correctly 7 minutes before the fire started (irrelevant to my point .. just a statement). However what he said was a frustrated joke, he was pissed that COM was horrible and he couldn’t hear mission control. Similar uses, obviously in different context, of that frustrated joke are used all the time in everyday life; it doesn’t mean one is serious. An example; “Jimmy how are you going to get to the fourth grade if you still can’t sit still?” It does not mean who ever said that doubts Jimmy will make it to the fourth grade!
Quote:
<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="width:100.0%;mso-cellspacing:0in;mso-yfti-tbllook:1184;mso-padding-alt: 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes"> <td style="border:inset 1.0pt;mso-border-alt:inset windowtext .75pt; padding:4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt"> “Every element of the program was in trouble and so were we. The simulators were not working, Mission Control was behind in virtually every area, and the flight and test procedures changed daily. Nothing we did had any shelf life. Not one of us stood up and said, 'Dammit, stop!' I don't know what Thompson's committee will find as the cause, but I know what I find. We are the cause! We were not ready! We did not do our job. We were rolling the dice, hoping that things would come together by launch day, when in our hearts we knew it would take a miracle. We were pushing the schedule and betting that the Cape would slip before we did.”
- Gene Kranz, NASA Flight Director, reflecting on the state of the Apollo program.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> Gene Kranz also said that but he was having a hard time with NASA management at the time. Like what happen in 1986 with Shuttle Challenger NASA management just wanted things done and done quick and were not listing to their engineers which pissed a lot of people off including Gene Kranz. Management was taking risks to speed things up and sometimes you can get away with those risks and sometimes you have to pay for them like in Apollo 1, Challenger, and Columbia!
Quote:
<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="width:100.0%;mso-cellspacing:0in;mso-yfti-tbllook:1184;mso-padding-alt: 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes"> <td style="border:inset 1.0pt;mso-border-alt:inset windowtext .75pt; padding:4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt"> ... and then 2.5 years later, 6 months before the “before this decade is out” deadline famously set by Kennedy, Neil shows up on the moon. I think Neil was great in this one. Did he also play in that other great movie about inducing a dream state to plant ideas in people’s head?... Inception, I think it was.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> This keeps going over dimwitted head … it took a whole decade of lessons starting with Project Mercury, things did not just happen overnight even though to ignorant people like you it seems that way. And you could take what I’m saying to bank as for I am taught by and have the honor of knowing professors who were in the industry at the time. It was a decade long chronicle of R&D, sometimes by trial and error, and then design and manufacturing. *Addendum 7* *You do know there were several flights between Apollo 1 and Apollo 11 yes? Most of them where unmanned and used the smaller brother to the Saturn V! Apollo 6 was the first launch (unmanned) of the complete Saturn V system then the first manned mission since Apollo 1 was Apollo 7 which used the smaller Saturn IB launch system. Next you had Apollo 8 which was the first manned mission of the Saturn V, so as you see there were a lot of launches and test between Apollo 1 and 11 and I can’t emphasize that enough!*
Quote:
<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="width:100.0%;mso-cellspacing:0in;mso-yfti-tbllook:1184;mso-padding-alt: 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes"> <td style="border:inset 1.0pt;mso-border-alt:inset windowtext .75pt; padding:4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt"> He doesn’t seem too comfy in the video below though. I feel a little tension and hesitation. I wouldn’t say Neil strikes me as the calm, assured and confident fellow ready to deal with any critical situation. It looks like he is going to drop to the floor at any moment. Buzz and Collins seem a little tensed too.
(just watch the first 3 or 4 min, starting at 1m30s):
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> One thing you should know about Neil is he was always shy and never liked a lot of attention. Even when he was a test pilot, long before he was an astronaut, he was camera shy. Also after his Gemini mission he tried to elude cameras, this was long before he was selected to be the first man on the moon because Gus Grissom was the one who was most likely going to get the task … up until he passed away on Apollo 1. That is just Neil’s character and if you knew anything about the man it would be obvious to you! *Addendum 8* *However im sure by your posts you don’t know a thing a about Neil and his character so please don’t speak for him; you have no idea who he really is and it is so evident from your last few posts* Second these men are astronauts, test pilots, not actors or celebrities … they are not used to all the attention they are getting and not used to being in the spotlight and on camera like you see in your video so of course they are nervous! Hell you might ask why they are nervous for a measly interview and are able to land on the moon? Well I’m not a physiologist but sometimes even when you tell yourself there is no reason to be nervous you cannot control the rush of adrenaline your body gets. *Addendum 9* *The human body is only good at what people do a lot … in other words we are only good at what we train for; clearly astronauts don’t consider interviewing to be the most important thing to train on and this is why they usually have a personal PR spokesperson (whatever their title really is “media spokesperson” or whatever) to help them!* These men trained to fly spacecraft and aircraft, not how to be masters of interviews; they are clearly out of their norm and doing something they are not accustomed to! Hell there are some celebrities and musicians who are great on stage and in front of the camera but freeze/get shy during interviews … maybe even Alizee is one of them! Your video does not prove any point *nor does your unnecessary further elaboration on it*!
Lastly how come space agencies and observatorys from around the world analyze the remains we left on the moon to see how objects last in a vacuum and all claim to monitor the Apollo landing sights with none claiming they can’t find anything? Why is that? Also how come a satellite from another country (I think Japan) captured an image of the flag on the moon still standing there today (though it has been faded white) .. why is that? How come top scientists from around the world all say we landed on the moon and its idiots like you who are not in the STEM profession who say otherwise? You say there is no evidence that we landed there … you are a fool because the only evidence missing is evidence that we haven't landed there! *Addendum 10 *Russia was tracking Apollo 11 the whole time for national security of their country as they were concerned that Apollo 11 might be doing military activity … why haven’t they said anything but only instead congratulated us? Yes they were happy we honored their fallen Yuri Gagarin (another great hero) with a plaque but is that really something that would cause a nation to keep a secret of its enemy … of course not lol!* Nothing more to say to you because I have given you more time than you deserved, it is not my fault if you don’t want to seek the information; because it is all there! “The enemy of knowledge is not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge!” – Stephen Hawking~

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w

oNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/> <w

ontFlipMirrorIndents/> <w:OverrideTableStyleHps/> </w:Compatibility> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->

Corsaire · #33 09-05-2012, 07:56 AM

Azhiri,

Thanks for your comments. Your post is interesting for many reasons. I will reply later.

FRA,

It is really regrettable that your 15000$/year education did not provide you with the basic tools one needs to carry a logical debate. As for politeness, respect for others and humbleness, I am not sure how much you might have to pay to acquire some, but you might want to invest a little money there too. Now, you can stop regurgitating your excruciatingly irrelevant missions details. I will not read it. You have amply proved that you have a tendency to type whatever comes to your head at any given moment without any verification of the facts and without addressing much of the specific points being discussed.

I ask you, again, to read post #31, follow the instructions and reply in a clear and concise manner to what I have put in neat easy to follow sections.

Also, if you think I am hijacking your thread, you should make an official complaint about it.

As for the moon rocks, their sole presence on Earth doesn’t prove that a man has walked on the moon. If you don’t know why I will let you know when a coherent debate does begin.

Plaz · #34 09-05-2012, 08:50 AM

To infinity and beyond...

Future Raptor Ace · #35 09-05-2012, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corsaire

Azhiri,

Thanks for your comments. Your post is interesting for many reasons. I will reply later.

FRA,

It is really regrettable that your 15000$/year education did not provide you with the basic tools one needs to carry a logical debate. As for politeness, respect for others and humbleness, I am not sure how much you might have to pay to acquire some, but you might want to invest a little money there too. Now, you can stop regurgitating your excruciatingly irrelevant missions details. I will not read it. You have amply proved that you have a tendency to type whatever comes to your head at any given moment without any verification of the facts and without addressing much of the specific points being discussed.

I ask you, again, to read post #31, follow the instructions and reply in a clear and concise manner to what I have put in neat easy to follow sections.

Also, if you think I am hijacking your thread, you should make an official complaint about it.

As for the moon rocks, their sole presence on Earth doesn’t prove that a man has walked on the moon. If you don’t know why I will let you know when a coherent debate does begin.

I am glad you responded with two things about me that have nothing to do with my post. You do have grounds on my writing as for it is horrible as well is my typing and spelling ... I admit it! But also know when I post here I am more relaxed than as if I was to write a paper and be taking it seriously. As for me being polite, having respect, and being humble; yes you are right I did not display any of those character traits (which I assure you I have ... I am a very nice man in real life don't worry) in my last post but that was for good reason. This is not a debate, a debate implies there is no right answer and one side is trying to persuade the other to their side. That is not the case here since, yes im sorry how this will be worded as for I dont sugarcoat, but im right and you are wrong! That is why my post is condescending, because of the fact that you are so blatantly wrong that there is no way to talk to you as if you were on my level anymore since I am now teaching you. Yes the insults might not be necessary but hey, everyone has their own style and mine is to dish them when deserved so there you have it! As for my humbleness I am very humble if you were to meet me outside of this forum (though I'm not sure I would ever want to meet you since I honestly don't respect you) however when one writes it is very easy to come across as not being humble.
I am also glad that you did not read my post; that is very humble of you

as for I read all of yours even though they are completely incorrect. You said you could not read my post due to my many grammatical errors (which I understand) and so I took the time to correct it as well as clearly label what I added to it. Yeah I can ramble and go on a few rants every now and then, but they add a little history and set the mood to my posts so I will keep doing it, im sorry you don't like them.
I will not re-read your post until I see ample evidence you have read mine (for the first time). Also I don't follow instructions from people as like I said before, you are not on my level in this thread, but I do take requests if asked nicely.
I will not debate you on the moon rocks which you forgot in your last post until I had to shove it in your face and feed it to you (embarrassing), however I will answer *some* of your questions (I am not here to do your research for you, you are big boy and can do some on your own) as for this not debatable and you don't seem to get that.

User22 · #36 09-05-2012, 11:25 AM

Alizée would look great in a space suit...nevermind, something more breathable and...

Edit:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azhiri

Now to put my mod gloves back on, I don't want this to get ugly - no more name-calling or insults to personal intelligence, that's silly and we're all bigger and better than that.

But I no can addiply 8" + toontwy centimurderers.

Looks like I'm dee excerption

But seriously, FRA, I love you.

Rocketry is awesome, hence why I am an Amateur Rocketeer:

Future Raptor Ace · #37 09-05-2012, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaronius31

Alizée would look great in a space suit...nevermind, something more breathable and...

Edit:

But I no can addiply 8" + toontwy centimurderers.

Looks like I'm dee excerption

But seriously, FRA, I love you.

Rocketry is awesome, hence why I am an Amateur Rocketeer:

LOL well she was in a G-suit and I found it sexy!

I wub you more Aron

And in the words of Stephen Colbert .. "its not a contest but im winning!"
Yeah rocketry is amazing!

Edit:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Junkmale

Ah..the Lockheed Starfighter.....
Brought this to mind :-)

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/kzNg23XVyEM" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"></iframe>

I forgot to respond to this lol. I was a little creeped out at first, the guys voice is so soft and just creepy lol. He sounds like HAL 9000 ... all I need him to say is "I can allow you to do that sir!" Overall funny video, thanks for sharing.

Corsaire · #38 09-06-2012, 01:08 AM

Azhiri,

I have discussed such issues with dozens if not hundreds of people through the years, both in real life and on the Internet. From the novice to the experienced and knowledgeable, I have received my fair share of insults and abuse. I suppose one has to expect that sort of reaction when holding inconceivable and unpopular views. You are amongst the very few who have ever acknowledged the that one has to brave to hold such opinions. Evidently, conformity is always the easiest standpoint to adopt because all the resources are on your side. Teachers will want to teach to you, people you meet will most likely agree with most everything you say, all the official information you will research will be in accordance with your views, the News on TV will make sense, people on Internet forums will be friendlier... basically, your everyday experience will be much more pleasant and comforting. When you choose to challenge consensus, you are in for quite an abuse. Still, human history has shown, again and again, that anti-conformism can be a valid and very fruitful endeavour. But it can be quite destructive too, that is the nature of the beast. Thanks for your open mind, as always.

As for your father’s opinion, I suppose you have provided it as is and this is possibly not something you would like to discuss in much more details. I will just say that I do not agree with his assessment about the limited amount of money that was available during the Apollo program years. The NASA budget went up to about 4,5% of the federal budget at that time, a colossal sum. Also, the fact that faking parts of the missions would have been more expensive, well, I am not sure that would be the case but it would be hard to debate without much data to support either view. About the unbelievable turn-around, in 2.5 years, from a program and an organisation that were in disarray to what some claim is the greatest achievement in human history, with all respect to your father’s opinion, I simply think this is a Hollywood script. Most people are fixated on the fact that the crew died in a freak accident and most believe that all that was needed to be done was to fix a few things here and there. This is not what is documented by some of the most relevant people involved at the time, including the crew (mainly Grissom) and the Flight Director. The accident was just an event which exposed the fact that the program was in a state of disarray. I already posted quotes concerning this and there are plenty more to be found.

My last point is about your description of Neil’s accomplishments. It is interesting because I believe it would fit exactly that of thousands if not millions of men and women who have risked their lives for a cause bigger than themselves. The only difference is that you and l will never know their names. Neil Armstrong could have been the bravest and the most capable of all the people who were on the frontlines of all the battles you can image and he would still be unknown. I tend to judge people for their specific achievements and I truly believe Neil only did what is job required, and it happened to include some risk for his life (which might have been way overestimated since, according to the official version, all the astronauts that walked on, or orbited the moon did apparently return alive. So, we have a 0% fatality rate

). **Edit: So, I do not understand why he would deserve so much more respect and admiration than any other courageous and dedicated man or woman who has performed his/her duties and, even died while doing so. If being a good and generous person who performs his/her job well (or even above expectation) while knowingly risking his/her life deserves all this attention, I guess we should have a few more of these RIP threads.**

FRA,

I never wrote that you had made typing, spelling or grammatical errors, I said that you did not provide a shred of any decent organised and logical reply to anything I have posted so far, and that you were wrong about quite a few NASA program historical facts

*. You refuse to organise your thoughts and you refuse to provide documented evidence for anything you post, so, where did you expect this discussion to go?

I would suggest that in the future, you spend less time trying to find out what other people don’t know and more time verifying what you think you know.

Concerning the moon rocks, Soviet Luna unmanned missions did, supposedly, bring back rock samples from the moon and that simple fact refutes the claim that any rock allegedly collected on the moon has to have had been collected by a man. You might argue that the quantities collected by unmanned missions were a very small fraction of what the Apollo missions allegedly brought back, but, that is not the point. The point is in the previous sentence. I guess you will now entertain me with more irrelevant details of some heroic deeds from some more heroes of yours, but that is not the point. You might argue that thousands of geologist claimed to have analysed Apollo collected rocks (and that some of them are too massive to have been returned by Luna) and that thousands of scientific papers have been published describing their unique properties (which are different from moon rocks found on Earth – lunar meteorites), but that still is not the point. Maybe one of your dear professor told you that Neil gave him a lunar rock? Still not the point. I think what I mean to say is that you are arguing without ever getting the point.

I think I will now give up on hoping to engage in a proper debate with you. You can certainly have your thread back now.

* Just so you know I wasn't bluffing, one of your most rudimentary mistakes was when you asserted that : "He risked his life and almost lost it, he landed on the moon with only 17-25 seconds left of fuel due to a failure in the lunar guidance computer!"

I already told you why you were wrong about the calculated risk Neil was taking, but just in that sentence, there was more. The legend (and your 15000$ a year education) say that the computer failed, but Margaret H. Hamilton (and the free Wikipedia) say it worked rather well:

Five minutes into the descent burn, and 6,000 feet (1,800 m) above the surface of the Moon, the LM navigation and guidance computer distracted the crew with the first of several unexpected "1202" and "1201" program alarms. Inside Mission Control Center in Houston, Texas, computer engineer Jack Garman told guidance officer Steve Bales it was safe to continue the descent and this was relayed to the crew. The program alarms indicated "executive overflows", meaning the guidance computer could not complete all of its tasks in real time and had to postpone some of them.[14]

In a letter to Datamation, March 1, 1971, Margaret H. Hamilton, Director of Apollo Flight Computer Programming MIT Draper Laboratory, Cambridge, Massachusetts, stated: “Due to an error in the checklist manual, the rendezvous radar switch was placed in the wrong position. This caused it to send erroneous signals to the computer. The result was that the computer was being asked to perform all of its normal functions for landing while receiving an extra load of spurious data which used up 15% of its time. The computer (or rather the software in it) was smart enough to recognize that it was being asked to perform more tasks than it should be performing. It then sent out an alarm, which meant to the astronaut, I'm overloaded with more tasks than I should be doing at this time and I'm going to keep only the more important tasks; i.e., the ones needed for landing...Actually, the computer was programmed to do more than recognize error conditions. A complete set of recovery programs was incorporated into the software. The software's action, in this case, was to eliminate lower priority tasks and re-establish the more important ones...If the computer hadn't recognized this problem and taken recovery action, I doubt if Apollo 11 would have been the successful moon landing it was”.

Scruffydog777 · #39 09-06-2012, 06:11 AM

To be perfectly honest, the only reason I come to this forum is because of Alizee and I seldom check out posts unless they apply to her. I never "really" belonged to a forum before she came along and I'm sure I will never seriously belong to one post Alizee. I hardly ever look at the off topic threads.

Now I do have a tremendous amount of respect for all astronauts. All you have to do is look at Apollo 1, 13 and the 2 shuttle disasters to realize how dangerous this job is and how brave these people are for putting their lives on the line the way they do.

I also have a tremendous amount of respect for men in the military, defending our freedom in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. But if someone started a post on this subject, I probably wouldn't visit it. It's not that I don't respect them, it's just not what I'm here for.

So I would like at this point to offer my condolences to the Armstrong family and hope they realize how much we admire Neil and all the astronauts for the great service they do for this country.

Future Raptor Ace · #40 09-06-2012, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corsaire

Azhiri,

I have discussed such issues with dozens if not hundreds of people through the years, both in real life and on the Internet. From the novice to the experienced and knowledgeable, I have received my fair share of insults and abuse. I suppose one has to expect that sort of reaction when holding inconceivable and unpopular views. You are amongst the very few who have ever acknowledged the that one has to brave to hold such opinions. Evidently, conformity is always the easiest standpoint to adopt because all the resources are on your side. Teachers will want to teach to you, people you meet will most likely agree with most everything you say, all the official information you will research will be in accordance with your views, the News on TV will make sense, people on Internet forums will be friendlier... basically, your everyday experience will be much more pleasant and comforting. When you choose to challenge consensus, you are in for quite an abuse. Still, human history has shown, again and again, that anti-conformism can be a valid and very fruitful endeavour. But it can be quite destructive too, that is the nature of the beast. Thanks for your open mind, as always.

As for your father’s opinion, I suppose you have provided it as is and this is possibly not something you would like to discuss in much more details. I will just say that I do not agree with his assessment about the limited amount of money that was available during the Apollo program years. The NASA budget went up to about 4,5% of the federal budget at that time, a colossal sum. Also, the fact that faking parts of the missions would have been more expensive, well, I am not sure that would be the case but it would be hard to debate without much data to support either view. About the unbelievable turn-around, in 2.5 years, from a program and an organisation that were in disarray to what some claim is the greatest achievement in human history, with all respect to your father’s opinion, I simply think this is a Hollywood script. Most people are fixated on the fact that the crew died in a freak accident and most believe that all that was needed to be done was to fix a few things here and there. This is not what is documented by some of the most relevant people involved at the time, including the crew (mainly Grissom) and the Flight Director. The accident was just an event which exposed the fact that the program was in a state of disarray. I already posted quotes concerning this and there are plenty more to be found.

My last point is about your description of Neil’s accomplishments. It is interesting because I believe it would fit exactly that of thousands if not millions of men and women who have risked their lives for a cause bigger than themselves. The only difference is that you and l will never know their names. Neil Armstrong could have been the bravest and the most capable of all the people who were on the frontlines of all the battles you can image and he would still be unknown. I tend to judge people for their specific achievements and I truly believe Neil only did what is job required, and it happened to include some risk for his life (which might have been way overestimated since, according to the official version, all the astronauts that walked on, or orbited the moon did apparently return alive. So, we have a 0% fatality rate

). **Edit: So, I do not understand why he would deserve so much more respect and admiration than any other courageous and dedicated man or woman who has performed his/her duties and, even died while doing so. If being a good and generous person who performs his/her job well (or even above expectation) while knowingly risking his/her life deserves all this attention, I guess we should have a few more of these RIP threads.**

FRA,

I never wrote that you had made typing, spelling or grammatical errors, I said that you did not provide a shred of any decent organised and logical reply to anything I have posted so far, and that you were wrong about quite a few NASA program historical facts

*. You refuse to organise your thoughts and you refuse to provide documented evidence for anything you post, so, where did you expect this discussion to go?

I would suggest that in the future, you spend less time trying to find out what other people don’t know and more time verifying what you think you know.

Concerning the moon rocks, Soviet Luna unmanned missions did, supposedly, bring back rock samples from the moon and that simple fact refutes the claim that any rock allegedly collected on the moon has to have had been collected by a man. You might argue that the quantities collected by unmanned missions were a very small fraction of what the Apollo missions allegedly brought back, but, that is not the point. The point is in the previous sentence. I guess you will now entertain me with more irrelevant details of some heroic deeds from some more heroes of yours, but that is not the point. You might argue that thousands of geologist claimed to have analysed Apollo collected rocks (and that some of them are too massive to have been returned by Luna) and that thousands of scientific papers have been published describing their unique properties (which are different from moon rocks found on Earth – lunar meteorites), but that still is not the point. Maybe one of your dear professor told you that Neil gave him a lunar rock? Still not the point. I think what I mean to say is that you are arguing without ever getting the point.

I think I will now give up on hoping to engage in a proper debate with you. You can certainly have your thread back now.

* Just so you know I wasn't bluffing, one of your most rudimentary mistakes was when you asserted that : "He risked his life and almost lost it, he landed on the moon with only 17-25 seconds left of fuel due to a failure in the lunar guidance computer!"

I already told you why you were wrong about the calculated risk Neil was taking, but just in that sentence, there was more. The legend (and your 15000$ a year education) say that the computer failed, but Margaret H. Hamilton (and the free Wikipedia) say it worked rather well:

Five minutes into the descent burn, and 6,000 feet (1,800 m) above the surface of the Moon, the LM navigation and guidance computer distracted the crew with the first of several unexpected "1202" and "1201" program alarms. Inside Mission Control Center in Houston, Texas, computer engineer Jack Garman told guidance officer Steve Bales it was safe to continue the descent and this was relayed to the crew. The program alarms indicated "executive overflows", meaning the guidance computer could not complete all of its tasks in real time and had to postpone some of them.[14]

In a letter to Datamation, March 1, 1971, Margaret H. Hamilton, Director of Apollo Flight Computer Programming MIT Draper Laboratory, Cambridge, Massachusetts, stated: “Due to an error in the checklist manual, the rendezvous radar switch was placed in the wrong position. This caused it to send erroneous signals to the computer. The result was that the computer was being asked to perform all of its normal functions for landing while receiving an extra load of spurious data which used up 15% of its time. The computer (or rather the software in it) was smart enough to recognize that it was being asked to perform more tasks than it should be performing. It then sent out an alarm, which meant to the astronaut, I'm overloaded with more tasks than I should be doing at this time and I'm going to keep only the more important tasks; i.e., the ones needed for landing...Actually, the computer was programmed to do more than recognize error conditions. A complete set of recovery programs was incorporated into the software. The software's action, in this case, was to eliminate lower priority tasks and re-establish the more important ones...If the computer hadn't recognized this problem and taken recovery action, I doubt if Apollo 11 would have been the successful moon landing it was”.

What you said about the flight computer is not correct, it did fail! I will explain this to you as simply as I can ... the flight computer had the Eagle landing towards a giant crater which would have been bad (LEM needed a nice flat place to land) so Neil maneuvered Eagle to find a new landing spot. The computer than became over loaded because it had to do too many calculations per second. It for it had to re-account for a new trajectory, a new landing velocity, a new target spot, chaining fuel levels etc. .. everything was dynamic all at once! The computers warning lights then came on all the while Buzz was calling out the fuel level. Neil then switched off the flight computer and flew the Eagle manually in which he landed on 17-25 seconds left of fuel. The funny thing is your reference that you provided says a simplified version of what I just said ... it is funny that you dont understand your own reference!
Im sure you read popular mechanics ...
http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...n-mars/4318170

Quote:

* Neil Armstrong, commander, Apollo 11: Prior to igniting the lunar module's descent engine to initiate the trajectory toward the lunar surface, I had been timing our angular rate over the craters on the surface below to calculate our altitude. I noted that, at ignition, we were somewhat west of our intended starting location. I inferred that our entire trajectory and landing point would be somewhat west of our planned landing spot.

Quote:

* Aldrin: We got the first 1202 alarm. So we look at each other, and we know it's in the guidance and navigation dictionary, but rather than try and get it out while the module is making a powered descent, Neil asked them what's the reading on the 1202 alarm. Then we got a 1201.

Quote:

* Charlie Duke, astronaut, capsule communicator (CAPCOM), White Team, Mission Control: I was shocked. Actually, "stunned" is a better word. I started reaching for my guidance and navigation checklist to see what a 1201 and a 1202 was. And, of course, Steve Bales knew immediately and didn't hesitate very long to say, "We're go on those alarms, Flight."

Quote:

* Kranz: Dick Koos, our simulation supervisor, gave us the 1201 and 1202 alarms. Steve [Bales] had never seen this before. During the simulation, they had an abort, which was his call.

Quote:

* Garman: Gene Kranz sat us all down and said, "I want you to figure out every possible alarm code that can happen in flight so that we're prepared." In those days, there was no such thing as desktop computers. So I wrote down all the alarm codes on a sheet of grid paper, with crib notes on what they meant and what our response should be. And I stuck it under the plexiglass of the console I was to sit at. And, lo and behold, one of them--well, a couple of them--popped up during the actual landing.

Quote:

* Eyles: What led to [the alarms] was an obscure mismatch deep in the electronics--two signals that should have been locked together in phase were only locked together in frequency. That hardware glitch involved the rendezvous radar, which really wasn't needed during the descent to the moon.

Quote:

* Ward: The computer was simply saying, "Hey, I've got more than I can handle, but I'm gonna do the important things, so don't worry about it."

Quote:

* Armstrong: The powered descent was the most challenging segment of the flight. The systems were heavily loaded, the margins were slim, and this would be the first time that the entire descent strategy would be fully tested. A decade earlier, while I was flying in the X-15 program, we learned, surprisingly, that all the pilots, while flying the X-15, had heart rates between 145 and 185. It reflected the mental intensity appropriate for a challenging situation. The Apollo data seemed to correlate well with our prior experience.

Quote:

* Carlton: I had a stopwatch. I'm looking at it, and at the same time I'm looking at the altitude, and I can see it's still a long way down. I didn't know it, but the guys were flying over a crater. We call up 30 seconds. I'm thinking there's no way we're going to make it.

Read more: Apollo 11 Moon Landing - The Untold Story of NASA’s Apollo 11 Moon Mission - Popular Mechanics

As you can see you are wrong and have no idea what you are talking about then have the nerve to tell me im wrong lol! This is going to be my problem when going to industry ... arguing with non engineers lol! You guys think you know something because you think your logic to be intuitive and or you know some basic facts about something but in reality the real world can be counter-intuitive on a regular basis. Then when we explain to you and talk to you like an engineer you do not understand and or miss-understand what we wrote. To make matters worse when we talk to you on a simple non technical basis you feel we are over simplifying it for you and ask for more technical details. Overall I just cant stand talking to non engineers about engineering problems and I hope I never have to do it in the work place

I hope they have someone like this for me to talk to
<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/RAY27NU1Jog" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>