NASA Apollo fuckary
3 2015-11-29 by Path-Of-Light
Found this on one of the Chans:
The "grainy super-8 film" was shot by a NASA employee, on a known camera, an uninterrupted take from launch to first staging. The time between frames is known, the height of the rocket is know so the distance between the shadow on the clouds and the path of the rocket can be determined from one frame to the next. It ain't rocket science.
F1 engine http://imgur.com/m2j6sju
The American tube design is problematic on high-pressure, high-thrust engines. The lower power engines used stainless steel tubes, while the F1 needed a stronger nickel allow to handle the pressure on the walls of the combustion chamber. The sulfur in the RP-1 kerosene reacted with the nickel, causing failures in the cooling tubes. This can be seen in first stage burn of the unmanned Apollo 6, the yellow flame of a too-rich mixture and the black smoke of decomposing kerosene. Pic Related, from the article referenced below. Apollo 6 failed to meet many mission requirements, yet all the manned flights performed flawlessly, except for Apollo 13, an accident staged to regain public interest in the space program, a needed distraction from the horrors of Vietnam.
For example, the F-1 tubular combustion chamber and nozzle were unable to provide the specified pressure and engine thrust. Furthermore, calculation of heat transfer and the stress applied to tube wall material reveals that:
The tube material (Inconel X-750) was unable to withstand the load applied to the tubes of the cooling jacket;
The tube material had problems with uncontrolled restructuring during thermal impact and with the chemical reaction of sulphur from kerosene RP-1 with nickel;
The tube material had never before been used in high-temperature parts of rocket engines, although it could have been used in the upgraded H-1 (an engine also manufactured by Rocketdyne);
The gas injection for cooling into the supersonic section of the nozzle caused shock waves in the injection area, narrowing the cross section of the supersonic flow and rendering pointless the profiling of the nozzle extension beyond the place of injection;
The F-1 nozzle cited in all NASA documentation appears to differ from the actual design of the nozzle of the F-1 engine located during a Jeff Bezos’ Expedition in 2013. Part of the nozzle can be seen in a photograph of the F-1 found on the ocean floor.
Americans now only use Russian design engines, for example on the Space Shuttle. Instead of cooling tubes, the fuel runs through channels between layers of the combustion chamber
http://www.aulis.com/pdf%20folder/F-1_Evaluation.pdf
The older I get, the less I believe in NASA. I feel like a kid who just found out Santa is not real, except it's much harder. A child can get over the fact that there is no santa pretty fast. It's been months since i stopped drinking the NASA cool-aid and i'm still not over the lies. I can't believe I used to love going to the space museum. Now i see it as a museum of lies.
26 comments
5 Greg_Roberts_0985 2015-11-29
The Apollo moon landings are an absolute pathetic myth that is still perpetuated by our government, it is absolutely no different than an adult believing in santa claus or the tooth fairy.
Human beings have never left low earth orbit, you have NASA directors on record, stating this to be true.
http://www.aulis.com
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo1.html (read all parts, great humor)
3 Cptcutter81 2015-11-29
I do have to say that I love how they used a Von-Braun quote to show how it's all fake. Oh, he was a NASA scientist, he must be right, right? . Yeah. He would be if the book that quote was taken from wasn't written in 1953: 4 years before Sputnik entered orbit, 6 years before the first object was landed on the moon, 8 Years before the first manned space-flight, and 16 years before Man landed on the moon. He was writing this in a time when they literally knew fuck all, and it really shows. Not to mention simple technological advancements in those 16 years.
3 kaydpea 2015-11-29
Sorry but no, actually those links are terrible and not only unreliable source material, but they're fabricated. The body of evidence of the moon landing is so large that faking it in such a manner would have been more difficult than actually doing it.
2 Greg_Roberts_0985 2015-11-29
Bullshit, Stanley Kubrick's, 2001: A Space Odyssey film, released in 1968, is more believable than the NASA human moon landings.
The fakery has not worked, it didn't even work back then in the 60's or 70's for a lot of people.
The lie has not and can not, stand the test of time, now nearly 50 years into the future, the claims made back then are still in the science fiction category.
Let me tell you this, you will NEVER in your lifetime, nor your children's life time and even their children's lifetime, ever be witness to a human being going beyond low earth orbit
2 kaydpea 2015-11-29
I can look through my telescope and see the landing site, so no, sorry. Unless you can offer actual proof this is just nonsense.
1 Greg_Roberts_0985 2015-11-29
I am sure you can look to where NASA claimed to have landed, but even NASA claim there is no telescope yet made that can actually see the landing sites and what was left behind, then you are proven to be full of shit.
HINT: There are no landing sites, it ever happened.
2 kaydpea 2015-11-29
NASA does not claim there is no telescope made that can see the landing sites, hell consumer level telescopes can achieve this. You know how I know, because I have one. Unless you have one and are saying this information is false, then I guess you can't make much of a claim. http://www.leonarddavid.com/found-impact-site-on-the-moon-of-apollo-16-rocket-stage/
1 NWuhO 2015-11-29
no we don't.
wow that's one hilarious collection of illiterate drivel
1 wetchup 2015-11-29
Can you prove that?
-4 coba1t 2015-11-29
Stfu you moron
6 Fullofshitguy 2015-11-29
Witty fucking retort right there
2 metabolix 2015-11-29
Please be polite. He is just lashing out from the cognitive dissonance. Give him time, he will heal.
1 burritolikethesun 2015-11-29
I thought forum rules said no retards. Yeah, I said retard. Moon hoaxers are retards.
By the way, it is Kool-Aid. " ... it's been months since I stopped drinking the NASA Kool-Aid ..." You also needed a comma to separate the independent clauses in that sentence, but you probably don't actually know basic comma usage--you guess around your writing just like you guess around history and everything else, building ad hoc theories from incomplete, confirmation biased or entirely misunderstood interpretations.
0 Cptcutter81 2015-11-29
I usually try to correct people when they make claims like "We've never left earth" and the landings are fakes, but I'm slowly realizing that the people who believe NASA are frauds aren't the kind-of people who can have their opinion changed. On the plus side, I get a chuckle out of every time a Dumb-ass Tries to use the Van-Allen Belts as evidence of fakery.
7 Path-Of-Light 2015-11-29
You couldn't possibly be further form the truth! which is typical.
Read what you wrote out loud. aren't the kind-of people who can have their opinion changed. Do you think that I popped out of my mom thinking NASA was a fraud? of course not. I used to think they were like gods. l just like everyone else, I believed everything they said at face value and I was at aw with their accomplishments. For thirty four fucking years! But i'm also a true skeptic and I started digging in just in the past few years. Most of the research is already done. You just have to look for it, and have an understanding of the bigger picture. The reason we can't go back is because it's literally like trying to believe in Santa Clause all over again. It's not possible to go back. Once you wake up Neo, you can't take the blue pill again.
3 metabolix 2015-11-29
Same here mate. Once you see how full of lies NASA is, you can never see any truth in any of their "accomplishments" again.
2 fgsz291 2015-11-29
So, how did they get human made things in the moon, which you are actually able to see from your own backyard with a telescope. Is there a NASA guy holding up a little sheet of paper in front of you everytime you look through a telescope?
1 endsieg88 2015-11-29
The BS-load on this one is quite heavy. Dude, you can't see shit from your own backyard, even if you go and spend thousands on your own little hubble bubble telescope.
If you want to see shit man sent to the moon? Go to lunar orbit, because you can't see jack from earth.
1 fgsz291 2015-11-29
ok
0 Path-Of-Light 2015-11-29
What man made thing ? You have no idea what you're taking about
2 fgsz291 2015-11-29
All 6 landing sites? Parts of the Luna 2? Parts of the Ranger 4? Ranger 6? Ranger 7? Luna 5? Luna 7? Luna 8? Explorer 35? Surveyor 7? Explorer 49? Hagoromo? Hiten? SELENE Rstar? Chandrayaan-1? GRAIL? LADEE?
you want me to go on?
0 Path-Of-Light 2015-11-29
You mean these?
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/wp-content/uploads/Moon-crater-Apollo-finder.jpg
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/LROCiotw/5.png
Lol okay. Sure. Those are "landing sites". Cool story bro
3 fgsz291 2015-11-29
I am not talking about pictures from the internet, you can see them your own with a telescope. But hey, whatever floats your boat, if you have nothing better to do in life then claiming the moon landing is a fake, go ahead.
0 Path-Of-Light 2015-11-29
pictures are from nasa. Thats the best they have and no, you can NOT see them with your telescope. I guarantee you have not seen it them with your own eyes, any better than that image. I'm not claiming it was faked. It was faked, period.
3 fgsz291 2015-11-29
K then.
-1 metabolix 2015-11-29
It is nothing but a heap of lies. Pity the kids who will fall into their trap.