WTF, NASA?!

[Will Torbald]

Are you of the opinion that individuals tasked with confiscation of resources using whatever force is necessary up to and including murder and are exempt from the laws they create and use to control and coerce are above lying?

 

Also, were you referring to the guy below?

 

 

Or were you talking about the Dunning-Kruger Effect?

 

Har har.

[shirgall]

Project Apollo Archive: https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums

 

Explanation: https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/21751523890

 

One of my favorites: https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/21281789484/in/album-72157658983205789/

[A4E]

Edit: Never mind about this post. I know it can be explained away, and that it is probably another goal of this, to make people argue. I am sorry.

 

---

 

Spot the difference... (Both images from NASA)

 

 

 

 

 

Pointed out by this video:

 

[rosencrantz]

[pretzelogik]

That's right you charlatans!  if you don't swallow the stories fed to you by the main stream media whole, with no skepticism or due diligence, you are a bunch of basement dwelling, cheez doodle eating, neck beards who deserve the full wrath of the true believers. Away to the dunking pond with all o' ye!

[Torero]

That's right you charlatans! if you don't swallow the stories fed to you by the main stream media whole, with no skepticism or due diligence, you are a bunch of basement dwelling, cheez doodle eating, neck beards who deserve the full wrath of the true believers. Away to the dunking pond with all o' ye!

Nothing more ridiculous than believer sheeple who think they are atheists but swallow the NASA Bullshit like it were really scientifically sound and not the empty clumsy CGI shite it is...

 

And not seldom those antitheist people feel themselves superior while being just as theist.

 

Poor empty simplistic souls, they really need help.

[Jake Danczyk]

Glad you mentioned escape velocity!

 

The escape velocity required to leave the gravitational field of earth according to NASA, is 36,960 ft/s. 

 

Wanted to provide some clarity to the concept of escape velocity.

 

The escape velocity is not the minimum velocity which must be reached to leave the Earth. In theory an object could leave Earth with a velocity relative to the center of the Earth of 1m/s(or .1 or .01 or so on....) So long as thrust generated is greater than the force of gravity pulling in the opposite direction, an object will continue to move away from Earth, and the force of Gravity will fall away in proportion to 1/r², where r=distance from the center of the Earth.

 

The escape velocity is minimum velocity which would give an object sufficient kinetic energy to escape the gravity well of a stellar body (assuming no energy lost to friction, because Earth has an atmosphere this assumption does not for launches from the surface)

 

It is the velocity which gives kinetic energy = to the potential energy of being 'down' in a gravity well

 

K=1/2*m*v² [K=kinetic energy m=mass, v=velocity]

 

U= (GMm)/r  [u=potential energy, G=universal gravitational constant, M=mass of the stellar body, in this case Earth, m=mass of the object)

 

So we set K=U

 

1/2*m*v²=(GMm)/r

 

we will solve for v

 

m cancels out

 

v²=2*(GMm)/r

 

v=(2GM/r)^1/2

 

we plug in our constants... G=6.67408 ×10-11 m³ kg^-1 s^-2  M=5.972 ×10^24 kg   r=6.371 ×10^6 m

 

and we get roughly 11,200 m/s 

 

more here http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vesc.html#c2

[pretzelogik]

 

Wanted to provide some clarity to the concept of escape velocity.

 

The escape velocity is not the minimum velocity which must be reached to leave the Earth. In theory an object could leave Earth with a velocity relative to the center of the Earth of 1m/s(or .1 or .01 or so on....) So long as thrust generated is greater than the force of gravity pulling in the opposite direction, an object will continue to move away from Earth, and the force of Gravity will fall away in proportion to 1/r², where r=distance from the center of the Earth.

 

The escape velocity is minimum velocity which would give an object sufficient kinetic energy to escape the gravity well of a stellar body (assuming no energy lost to friction, because Earth has an atmosphere this assumption does not for launches from the surface)

 

It is the velocity which gives kinetic energy = to the potential energy of being 'down' in a gravity well

 

K=1/2*m*v² [K=kinetic energy m=mass, v=velocity]

 

U= (GMm)/r  [u=potential energy, G=universal gravitational constant, M=mass of the stellar body, in this case Earth, m=mass of the object)

 

So we set K=U

 

1/2*m*v²=(GMm)/r

 

we will solve for v

 

m cancels out

 

v²=2*(GMm)/r

 

v=(2GM/r)^1/2

 

we plug in our constants... G=6.67408 ×10-11 m³ kg^-1 s^-2  M=5.972 ×10^24 kg   r=6.371 ×10^6 m

 

and we get roughly 11,200 m/s 

 

more here http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vesc.html#c2

 

Okay....

 

Let's have a look at the Gravitational Constant.  From Wiki:

 

"The gravitational constant is a physical constant that is difficult to measure with high accuracy"

 

"The gravitational constant appears in Newton's law of universal gravitation, but it was not measured until seventy-one years           after  Newton's death by Henry Cavendish with his Cavendish experiment, performed in 1798 (Philosophical Transaction 1798).   Cavendish measured G implicitly, using a torsion balance invented by the geologist Rev. John Mitchell.

 

"The accuracy of the measured value of G has increased only modestly since the original Cavendish experiment."

 

Below is the Cavendish experiment, the results of which are still in use today:

 

"The apparatus constructed by Cavendish was a torsion balance made of a six-foot (1.8 m) wooden rod suspended from a wire, with a 2-inch (51 mm) diameter 1.61-pound (0.73 kg) lead sphere attached to each end. Two 12-inch (300 mm) 348-pound (158 kg) lead balls were located near the smaller balls, about 9 inches (230 mm) away, and held in place with a separate suspension system.^[8] The experiment measured the faint gravitational attraction between the small balls and the larger ones.

 

The two large balls were positioned on alternate sides of the horizontal wooden arm of the balance. Their mutual attraction to the small balls caused the arm to rotate, twisting the wire supporting the arm. The arm stopped rotating when it reached an angle where the twisting force of the wire balanced the combined gravitational force of attraction between the large and small lead spheres. By measuring the angle of the rod and knowing the twisting force (torque) of the wire for a given angle, Cavendish was able to determine the force between the pairs of masses. Since the gravitational force of the Earth on the small ball could be measured directly by weighing it, the ratio of the two forces allowed the density of the earth to be calculated, using Newton's law of gravitation."

 

Of course, you are free to believe that density of the earth could be calculated using a couple of 2 pound balls spinning on a contraption concocted by a clergyman, but I will reserve judgement for the time being.

 

It's totally fitting that much of what we know of as science today was instituted by the clergy of days gone by.  deGrasse Tyson's apple has not fallen far from Newton's tree, as it turns out.

 

Those who claim to know the mass of the earth would have been right at home making determinations about the number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin.  The epistemological significance of both are equivalent in terms of the value they have added to the human experience.

 

Oh, and did I mention that escape velocity was calculated by Jules Verne in 1865 and was surprisingly accurate?  Who knew?

[rosencrantz]

Of course, you are free to believe that density of the earth could be calculated using a couple of 2 pound balls spinning on a contraption concocted by a clergyman, but I will reserve judgement for the time being.

 

 

 

You can hear the collective sigh of relief from physicists all over the world when you listen closely. 

[shirgall]

I did a Cavendish Experiment with my fellow students when I was in college, and I remember how hard it was to isolate from the air conditioning. It's neat though.

[pretzelogik]

 

 

You can hear the collective sigh of relief from physicists all over the world when you listen closely. 

 

 

Well, at least they are not being set on fire for coming up with the wrong number of dancing angels on the pinhead.  That should be cause for relief and some measure of progress.

 

I did a Cavendish Experiment with my fellow students when I was in college, and I remember how hard it was to isolate from the air conditioning. It's neat though.

 

Good thing Cavendish wasn't plagued by a vibrating air handler, which is a perfectly reasonable explanation for why the earth may appear to have put on a few pounds.  "Does this frequency make me look fat?"

[csekavec]

Are you naturally this moronic or do you have to make an effort?

[pretzelogik]

Are you naturally this moronic or do you have to make an effort?

 

Pardon me for being so presumptuous as to flatter myself in thinking the above remark was this way directed, but being one of the flies in the proverbial statist/NASA boot-licking ointment so prevalent on this site I'll make the assumption.

 

By making an effort to be moronic (not an argument, BTW, as Stef is often wont to remark), I assume you mean acted in opposition to sitting dutifully in my state funded university chair, absorbing without criticism or question every morsel of ordained science presented by the clergy academics and later faithfully regurgitating it back to them in exchange for their approval in the form of an acceptable grade.

 

So, in answer, yes it probably takes more effort to consider whether the the weight of the earth can be extrapolated from a couple of lead balls (brass would have been more appropriate) than marking 5.972 X 10²⁴ in the "What's the mass of the earth?" blank.

 

With this sort of proof of accuracy a science nerd with a few empty brief cases and a couple of BBs on a piece of thread could make a mint dealing "drugs".  I'd spend a bit of time nailing down the presentation first, though.

 

Anyway, since this thread is actually about NASA, one of the most vivid expressions of the state and state largess , how is it that all the NASA fanboys here are completely oblivious to the massive conflict of interest involved in seeing NASA as an expression of science rather than one of politics?  Okay, we are going to found an institute of science: how about we get Aleister Crowley?  No? Okay, next best thing, Jack Parsons. And L. Ron Hubbard, Walt Disney and Hollywood.  Voila!  It's science!

[shirgall]

The conspiracy goes further than we thought. http://www.tylervigen.com/view_correlation.php?id=1889

 

[pretzelogik]

Let's just cut to the chase prior to additional submissions regarding the ridiculous imagery, references to the genealogy, the dubious backgrounds of the NASA founders, the fact that NASA is nothing if not a grandiose expression of statism, the complete and total lack of anything of actual value ever to emanate from NASA and all the rest.

 

Is there anything, anything at all, that could be added to this thread that would move Apollo believers an iota toward adopting a bit of skepticism about the claims made by NASA?

[shirgall]

Is there anything, anything at all, that could be added to this thread that would move Apollo believers an iota toward adopting a bit of skepticism about the claims made by NASA?

 

All claims? Very little. Specific claims? Perhaps. Just remember some of us are old enough to remember the Apollo broadcasts and have been to Cape Canaveral to see launches.

[A4E]

 

Is there anything, anything at all, that could be added to this thread that would move Apollo believers an iota toward adopting a bit of skepticism about the claims made by NASA?

Threads like these on many different topics are very common on the internet, but usually with 50x more flaming and ridiculing and ad hominems from both sides. The power of stories are initially much stronger than the power of reason and evidence.

 

It is unlikely that NASA or anyone else will go to the moon in order to prove that we can do it. It is pretty much certain that new stories are going to be created, ie a mission to mars. I would love to believe that the population will be able to see through it, but I have to face reality, which is that the majority are initially easily convinced with stories.

 

With a real free market and competition we can probably go to the moon and mars in the future.

[pretzelogik]

All claims? Very little. Specific claims? Perhaps. Just remember some of us are old enough to remember the Apollo broadcasts and have been to Cape Canaveral to see launches.

 

I would be one of those who remembers.  It wasn't until recently that I began to wonder why they would essentially interrupt entire school days (iirc, it seemed to be interminable as I found the broadcasts boring as a eight year old) and roll the TV cart into the classroom to make sure everyone in the public school of the small town I grew up in (50 students per graduating class) bore witness to this event.

 

To my mind this is much more similar to subjecting North Korean school children to videos of KJI shooting a miraculous hole in one than anything to do with science.

 

I've seen the launches, too.  Which is to say I have seen objects lift off of the ground and disappear from view.

[Romulox]

Is there anything, anything at all, that could be added to this thread that would move Apollo believers an iota toward adopting a bit of skepticism about the claims made by NASA?

 

Perhaps you can show us a reason why anyone on this message board should care.  Understand you are trying to convince an anarchist message board of the corruption of the state, using one of the least convincing methods imaginable.  In what way will adopting your point of view change my opinion of the state, or my life for that matter?  If NASA faked the moon landings, then one can conclude that the state lies to its people to further achieve its own corrupt ends.  If NASA didn't fake the moon landings, then the state still lies to its people to further achieve its own corrupt ends; I can just look to one of the many thousands of other, provable examples.  How does this conclusion about the state change in any way?  If my conclusion doesn't change, then please help me understand why I should take time out of my already busy schedule to devote one minute of thought to this argument? 

[pretzelogik]

Perhaps you can show us a reason why anyone on this message board should care.  Understand you are trying to convince an anarchist message board of the corruption of the state, using one of the least convincing methods imaginable.  In what way will adopting your point of view change my opinion of the state, or my life for that matter?  If NASA faked the moon landings, then one can conclude that the state lies to its people to further achieve its own corrupt ends.  If NASA didn't fake the moon landings, then the state still lies to its people to further achieve its own corrupt ends; I can just look to one of the many thousands of other, provable examples.  How does this conclusion about the state change in any way?  If my conclusion doesn't change, then please help me understand why I should take time out of my already busy schedule to devote one minute of thought to this argument? 

 

I actually gave you a plus one on this comment!

 

It doesn't really matter and people will believe as they do, and it is probably not worth taking the time to argue the point one way or another.

 

If there is any worthwhile takeaway form the NASA extravaganza it's that the media is in lockstep with the state apparatus and is used as a way of manipulating what we think of as "reality".  The "news" is no more real than movies or other network television programs and Apollo is one way of illustrating the manipulation.

 

It's still a bridge too far for most; everyone gets to things in their own time.

 

Actual reality awaits!  I will take my own medicine and hereafter will spending more time under the sun and stars instead of wondering why NASA has never bothered to take a photo of them from space.

 

Adieu!

[Romulox]

I actually gave you a plus one on this comment!

 

Glad you found my perspective to be useful.  I appreciate the rather unexpected +1 and returned the favor.

 

...the media is in lockstep with the state apparatus and is used as a way of manipulating what we think of as "reality".  The "news" is no more real than movies or other network television program...

 

Don't think anyone on this site will disagree with you there!  There are certainly no shortage of media and state lies that we can all see eye to eye on.

[AncapFTW]

I actually gave you a plus one on this comment!

 

It doesn't really matter and people will believe as they do, and it is probably not worth taking the time to argue the point one way or another.

 

If there is any worthwhile takeaway form the NASA extravaganza it's that the media is in lockstep with the state apparatus and is used as a way of manipulating what we think of as "reality".  The "news" is no more real than movies or other network television programs and Apollo is one way of illustrating the manipulation.

 

It's still a bridge too far for most; everyone gets to things in their own time.

 

Actual reality awaits!  I will take my own medicine and hereafter will spending more time under the sun and stars instead of wondering why NASA has never bothered to take a photo of them from space.

 

Adieu!

Not that you'll even give a second thought to the idea that it might be real, but here's a link to a live feed from the ISS.

 

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/iss-hdev-payload

[csekavec]

And if one still doubts it's real footage then can calculate when the ISS will be overhead when it's night in the region and signal it using a power enough light source. The strobes will show up on the online stream. You might need to travel into a rural area. My friend and I did just that using his home made laser rig shortly after the stream started. Alcohol and hilarity was involved. 

[shirgall]

And if one still doubts it's real footage then can calculate when the ISS will be overhead when it's night in the region and signal it using a power enough light source. The strobes will show up on the online stream. You might need to travel into a rural area. My friend and I did just that using his home made laser rig shortly after the stream started. Alcohol and hilarity was involved. 

 

Be careful not to get nailed by the cops who get people for shining lasers at airplanes.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2795836/moment-police-helicopter-tracks-party-goer-shone-laser-pen-pilot-s-eyes-officers-ground-arrest-him.html

[AncapFTW]

And if one still doubts it's real footage then can calculate when the ISS will be overhead when it's night in the region and signal it using a power enough light source. The strobes will show up on the online stream. You might need to travel into a rural area. My friend and I did just that using his home made laser rig shortly after the stream started. Alcohol and hilarity was involved. 

You can also call them on a ham radio.