Hoaxesssss innnnn Spaaaaaace

M5 · 18-07-2019 8:55am

Ok, so poster with the questions. Any further clarification required on the ISS visibility, vacuum, or the laser retro reflector or can we take it you accept the overwhelming scientific concensus on all 3 issues you rasisd?

If not please provide evidence to the contrary or ask further questions if you would like.

I Would like to close this discussion before moving on to any further questions you may have which I for one will be happy to field once the initial questions are addressed

bfa1509 · 18-07-2019 11:18pm

Overheal wrote: »

Earth and space-habitation atmosphere is 14.7 psia or 101.3 kPa. A can of soda @ 20 deg C sports about 250 kPa. So in actuality there is more pressure difference between the inside of a coke can and your living room than there is between an EVA suit and space,

The EVA gloves are no doubt the most dexterous part of the EVA suit and they are indeed designed to contain the 1 atmosphere pressure differential we're talking about here.

I'm glad you raised this point, although it's a bit of a stretch to compare a can in a living room to a vessel in space, but it still gets the message across.

Aluminium cans are actually rated very high for pressure, (as your numbers show) so I wouldn't assume that a space suit having to meet similar or less requirements would be in any way easy.

Lets go through this together and you can disagree with/correct any point I make. If we split this up into two situations, before the can explodes and after the can explodes. As we could apply the same concept to the two examples I made above (pressure inside the suit and the 2mm hole in the ISS)

Before can explodes: If there is 250 kPa of pressure inside the can and 1atm (101kPa) outside, this would be the equivalent of 149kPa or 149,000 Newtons/square meter of pressure acting on the internal wall of the can. Lets say a space suit has 1atm pressure inside and is in space, and for arguments sake has an internal surface area of 1 square metre. This means that there is 101,000 Newtons of pressure force acting on the wall of the space suit. Lets say you took 1 metre squared of the space suit fabric, asked two men to hold the corners, then exert 101,000 N of force on the material. This would be the equivalent of the men holding 1.01 tonnes of weight between them. Imagine the stretch that would cause on the material? No matter how strong or flexible it is, it would be impossible for a man to stretch it further in order to move.

After can explodes: If the can is made up of about 10% gas (33ml) at the point of failure, it makes for a pretty dramatic explosion as the pressure between the inside of the can and the pressure of the room equalise:

https://youtu.be/iYefnNghfsw?t=110

I can't even comprehend what would happen if you had vacuum a million times stronger in the infinitesimally sized room of space and had a 2mm hole in the ISS. It would make for a pretty violent explosion as the air tries to equalise.

King Mob · 19-07-2019 12:34am

bfa1509 wrote: »

I'm glad you raised this point,

Hi, sorry. Several points have been made to you eariler in this thread.

We have asked you several times to address these before moving onto your next point.
Its very rude to ignore these and does not bode well that you are willing to avoid points you cannot address.

Please go back and address them.

M5 · 19-07-2019 7:50am

Yep, +1 on that, how do you explain the iss? It's clearly visible in detail with very rudimentary equipment?

How do you explain the reflector. On the moon. I asked this question in the first reply.

Moving the conversation on because you have no explanation is not going to fly

M5 · 19-07-2019 7:57am

FYI. Iss pass tonight. Clearly visible depending on cloud cover.

Grab binoculars or a scope and you will be able to verify this yourself. No NASA interference required. Your own eyes can verify.

start time 22:49 from wsw
Ends 22.56 in direction E

19-07-2019 8:24am

bfa1509 wrote: »

It breaks too many physical and thermodynamic laws...

Which are? Can you list them... apart from the vacuum.

Plus, can you confirm your stance on the Flat Earth "theory"?

Beechwoodspark · 19-07-2019 8:32am

Someone mentioned the flag “fluttering” on the moon

It didn’t flutter in the wind. There’s no atmosphere on the moon so that is ruled out.

It fluttered as a reaction to the energy waves from the LM when it boosted off the surface to rendezvous with the Command Module.

It actually ended up falling over according to Buzz Aldrin.

19-07-2019 8:37am

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

There’s no atmosphere on the moon so that is ruled out.

But there is on the sound stage inside area 51 dontcha know :pac:

Cork Boy 53 · 19-07-2019 8:38am

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Someone mentioned the flag “fluttering” on the moon

It didn’t flutter in the wind. There’s no atmosphere on the moon so that is ruled out.

It fluttered as a reaction to the energy waves from the LM when it boosted off the surface to rendezvous with the Command Module.

It actually ended up falling over according to Buzz Aldrin.

If you look at the old footage of the LM lifting off from the Moon, you can clearly see that the flag does whip around in the exhaust gases before toppling over.

Beechwoodspark · 19-07-2019 8:38am

Cork Boy 53 wrote: »

If you look at the old footage of the LM lifting off from the Moon, you can clearly see that the flag does whip around in the exhaust gases before toppling over.

Yes that’s right.

knucklehead6 · 19-07-2019 8:43am

bfa1509 wrote: »

I have an engineering background, and quite frankly, I can't believe any human ever got to space (or at least got to space and returned alive), let alone the moon landings. It breaks too many physical and thermodynamic laws, especially with the near perfect vacuum that is supposedly up there. (I can go at it with any opposers who are willing to spend the energy!!)

I very subtly and carefully hinted my doubts to some, close, considerate people I know and the one argument they always come up with is that too many people would have to keep it secret, thousands of people. This simply isn't true, the whole space program contracts all the projects out to 3rd party contractors who fulfil a specific project. All of these then converge together to form the program. Very few people need to be "in on it". And even if they blew the whistle, nobody would believe them.

I don’t think holding onto the back of your ear and making vroom vroom noises constitutes having an engineering background

facehugger99 · 19-07-2019 9:37am

bfa1509 wrote: »

https://youtu.be/iYefnNghfsw?t=110

You do know that youtube video you posted is of a can being heated?

While a can of soda at 20 degrees is at about 250kPA, at 35 degrees it's at 380kPA. I'm not sure what temperature those dudes heated it too but I'd wager it's a lot more than 35 degrees - I'd say the pressure is closer to 1,000 kPA.

So I don't get what your point is. Are you saying you don't think it's possible to construct a space suit that can withstand about 10% of the pressure differential that a can of soda can withstand?

bfa1509 · 19-07-2019 11:51am

King Mob wrote: »

Hi, sorry. Several points have been made to you eariler in this thread.

We have asked you several times to address these before moving onto your next point.
Its very rude to ignore these and does not bode well that you are willing to avoid points you cannot address.

Please go back and address them.

Firstly, I don't have to do anything before moving onto my next point, you don't have the power to dictate the confines of this thread. Although I can see why you would, because you aren't comfortable with discussing the other swaths of evidence against the moonlandings (most of which I haven't even mentioned yet).

I already said that the ISS crossing overhead could be anything, a satellite, a plane, a balloon. And with regard the retroreflectors, the only evidence you have is based on hearsay.

The biggest smoking gun of all should be NASA's own admission that we haven't been passed low earth orbit or the Van Allen Belts. But I guess you want me to come back and address your first two points before I'm allowed move on to this, eh?

M5 · 19-07-2019 12:00pm

YOU CAN SEE IT WITH A PAIR OF BINOCULARS YOURSELF, TONIGHT!!! THAT'S NOT HERESAY

You're basically now calling me a liar! I have seen it, the shape including solar panels, modules etc with my own eyes. It wasn't a plane. I'm fairly sure I know what one looks like

Do you have a sat nav?
Do you watch live sports from another continent?
How do accounts for satellite dish alignment?

For someone with engineering background a lot of your options seem to be based on hunches and completely devoid of any engineering reasoning. Ironically all ****ing hearsay!

Get out this evening and look yourself! That will at least confirm your suspicions, right?

King Mob · 19-07-2019 12:07pm

bfa1509 wrote: »

Firstly, I don't have to do anything before moving onto my next point, you don't have the power to dictate the confines of this thread. Although I can see why you would, because you aren't comfortable with discussing the other swaths of evidence against the moonlandings (most of which I haven't even mentioned yet).

I am comfortable with discussing them and I can easily show them to be nonsense on several levels.
But I don't think that will be worth the effort when you seem to find it acceptable to just ignore points you can't address.

bfa1509 wrote: »

I already said that the ISS crossing overhead could be anything, a satellite, a plane, a balloon.

Lol.
No it can't. Go back and read the posts again, particularly the links detailing how images of the ISS can be captured from the ground.

bfa1509 wrote: »

And with regard the retroreflectors, the only evidence you have is based on hearsay.

None of what I posted is hearsay...
I pointed out that retroreflectors exist and they are in every day use despite you claiming that what they do is impossible.
Again, you need to go back and re read it then attempt to address it properly.

bfa1509 wrote: »

The biggest smoking gun of all should be NASA's own admission that we haven't been passed low earth orbit or the Van Allen Belts. But I guess you want me to come back and address your first two points before I'm allowed move on to this, eh?

Yes, I would like you to address the points already brought up before bringing up new points.
Thanks.

M5 · 19-07-2019 12:11pm

OP: id be happy to debate
Me: ask question
OP

victor8600 · 19-07-2019 12:12pm

bfa1509 wrote: »

So you are telling me that you personally saw the ISS, which is supposedly 400 km above the earth's surface travelling at 28,000 km/hr?

I have.

Admittedly, I cannot prove it to a staunch conspiracy theorist. Sure, I have seen something resembling the ISS moving in the sky where the ISS was predicted to be. But it could have been a hologram projected onto the sky from Kremlin.

M5 · 19-07-2019 12:20pm

The op calling verifiable experiments hearsay while quoting directly from conspiracy websites is delicious when you think about it

bfa1509 · 19-07-2019 12:20pm

King Mob wrote: »

I am comfortable with discussing them and I can easily show them to be nonsense on several levels.
But I don't think that will be worth the effort when you seem to find it acceptable to just ignore points you can't address.

Lol.
No it can't. Go back and read the posts again, particularly the links detailing how images of the ISS can be captured from the ground.

None of what I posted is hearsay...
I pointed out that retroreflectors exist and they are in every day use despite you claiming that what they do is impossible.
Again, you need to go back and re read it then attempt to address it properly.

Yes, I would like you to address the points already brought up before bringing up new points.
Thanks.

Well fortunately, this is an open forum, and I don't have to stick to your rules.

I understand why most people are upset about what I'm saying. I was a fan of all things space related a few years back and I probably would have been offended too if someone told me it was all fake. That was until I saw a few bizarre pieces of footage from the moonlanding that were in no way convincing. And I slowly started to find that reading into the whole hoax was far more interesting than anything else.

I'm now speaking to any interested, open-minded lurkers. This video is a good place to start:

And don't let those calling you a tin-foil hat wearing consipiracy theorist dissuade you from pursuing it further.

M5 · 19-07-2019 12:22pm

YouTube a peer reviewed source now?

This is hillarious

M5 · 19-07-2019 12:23pm

The reason you won't engage is you know where it leads.

The entire deck of cards can be undone by you and a pair of binoculars at the time I posted earlier today.

Overheal · 19-07-2019 12:24pm

bfa1509 wrote: »

I'm glad you raised this point, although it's a bit of a stretch to compare a can in a living room to a vessel in space, but it still gets the message across.

Aluminium cans are actually rated very high for pressure, (as your numbers show) so I wouldn't assume that a space suit having to meet similar or less requirements would be in any way easy.

Lets go through this together and you can disagree with/correct any point I make. If we split this up into two situations, before the can explodes and after the can explodes. As we could apply the same concept to the two examples I made above (pressure inside the suit and the 2mm hole in the ISS)

Before can explodes: If there is 250 kPa of pressure inside the can and 1atm (101kPa) outside, this would be the equivalent of 149kPa or 149,000 Newtons/square meter of pressure acting on the internal wall of the can. Lets say a space suit has 1atm pressure inside and is in space, and for arguments sake has an internal surface area of 1 square metre. This means that there is 101,000 Newtons of pressure force acting on the wall of the space suit. Lets say you took 1 metre squared of the space suit fabric, asked two men to hold the corners, then exert 101,000 N of force on the material. This would be the equivalent of the men holding 1.01 tonnes of weight between them. Imagine the stretch that would cause on the material? No matter how strong or flexible it is, it would be impossible for a man to stretch it further in order to move.

After can explodes: If the can is made up of about 10% gas (33ml) at the point of failure, it makes for a pretty dramatic explosion as the pressure between the inside of the can and the pressure of the room equalise:

https://youtu.be/iYefnNghfsw?t=110

I can't even comprehend what would happen if you had vacuum a million times stronger in the infinitesimally sized room of space and had a 2mm hole in the ISS. It would make for a pretty violent explosion as the air tries to equalise.

It’s not a ‘multiplier’ my dude. It’s not a divide by zero thing. If I have 14.7 pounds per square inch of force against a surface with 0 psia on the other side, the force exerted on the surface is still 14.7 psi. Pressure vessels are used every day that can handle thousands of psi.

Now to your other point about a leak in the ISS: the atmosphere inside the ISS or an EVA suit isn’t carbonated. Let’s use a better example, an actual pressure vessel leak: it does not explode. You get a straightforward fluid mechanics problem about an ideal gas flowing from a relatively vast space at 14.7 psi through a 2mm hole to another vast space at 0 psi. No so more does a submarine implode from a leak at several atmospheres of pressure.

All we have here is an appeal to incredulity because of a fundamental lack of understanding of fluid mechanics and mechanics of materials. Since you brought it up: what, exactly, is your engineering background?

M5 · 19-07-2019 12:24pm

You said that seeing the ISS at all was impossible earlier. Now it's "probably a plane"

Do you admit you were incorrect initially?

Overheal · 19-07-2019 12:27pm

That would have to be a really fast plane that actually does defy the laws of aerodynamics.

skerry · 19-07-2019 12:28pm

Are you also saying the shuttle program was faked, I'm guessing yes seeing as you don't believe the ISS is actually up there?

King Mob · 19-07-2019 12:28pm

bfa1509 wrote: »

Well fortunately, this is an open forum, and I don't have to stick to your rules.

You don't have to, no.
But it makes it a bit clear to everyone that you are not able to address the most basic questions put to you and you are not honest enough to just admit that.

bfa1509 wrote: »

I understand why most people are upset about what I'm saying. I was a fan of all things space related a few years back and I probably would have been offended too if someone told me it was all fake. That was until I saw a few bizarre pieces of footage from the moonlanding that were in no way convincing. And I slowly started to find that reading into the whole hoax was far more interesting than anything else.
.

None of these things stand up to scrutiny.
Much like your claim about retroflectors and the ISS, they are debunked with seconds of google research.

bfa1509 · 19-07-2019 12:28pm

M5 wrote: »

The op calling verifiable experiments hearsay while quoting directly from conspiracy websites is delicious when you think about it

I didn't quote from a single conspiracy website

M5 wrote: »

YouTube a peer reviewed source now?

This is hillarious

You havent' presented a single scientific article supporting your arguments.

M5 wrote: »

The reason you won't engage is you know where it leads.

I know exactly where it leads. And I am very comfortable with my position.

But bring on the insults. It shows your level of comfort with your own belief.

King Mob · 19-07-2019 12:36pm

bfa1509 wrote: »

This video is sensationalist garbage.

The first actual piece of evidence is the Van Allen belts.
The argument seems to be that any amount of radiation is lethal.
He offers no facts or figures to explain how much radiation astronauts might experience. No conspiracy theorist who makes this claim ever seems to be able to supply figures, yet are completely confident that it's a lethal dose.
Weird that.

The next few points are about the common conspiracy cannards about photos: Crosshairs and non parallel shadows. Debunked long, long ago.

The next point is that we haven't seen the artefacts left on the moon, which is a bald faced lie. We have.

The last is just opinion asserted as fact.

If this video is in anyway convincing to anyone, I have a few bridges I need to sell.

M5 · 19-07-2019 12:38pm

I have seen it myself, with my eyes. I'm not paid by NASA nor do I have any links with NASA or any ancillary organisations. Yet somehow I can see with my scope the iss in the sky. Its not a plane, it is a satellite (despite you earlier saying "it could be a satellite" which was about the only correct thing you have said in this thread, even if you didn't mean it as such)

M5 · 19-07-2019 12:40pm

YouTube video is HERESAY! (To use op's terminology)

Hoaxesssss innnnn Spaaaaaace

Comments