Conspiracy theory poll, percentage of Britains who believe in:

  • Thread starter Deleted member 27897
  • Start date


pinewaves1868 said:
The effects of pure oxygen on humans and combustibles hasn’t been ’trial and error’ since five minutes after Faraday was lab assistant.
Please feel free to educate. argh go on.
Click to expand...
Well, feel free to point out your evidence first seeing as you're clearly more intelligent than all of the scientists that achieved the greatest achievement in human history all without the hindsight dismissive and deluded smart arses like you have.

Oxygen was used for saving weight. When you're essentially sat atop a giant f***ing bomb I doubt the capsule being filled with pure oxygen was high on your list of concerns, to be honest. There was always risk attached to these launches, the astronauts knew this, and had diced with death many times before as prototype/fighter jet pilots.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
tunstall birdman said:
Both governments in the space race did their best to convince their country that they were winning and I would think that they had contingencies in place to cover up failure as much as possible. In the war of ideologies between the two, everything possible would have been done to cover up failure and exaggerate success.
Click to expand...
The Soviet Union wasn't particularly far behind the USA in the space race and would have been monitoring the moon landing closely. So surely they would have realised if anything was being faked and I very much doubt they wouldn't have blown the whistle on their Cold War foe.
 
Lexingtongue said:
Well, feel free to point out your evidence first seeing as you're clearly more intelligent than all of the scientists that achieved the greatest achievement in human history all without the hindsight dismissive and deluded smart arses like you have.

Oxygen was used for saving weight. When you're essentially sat atop a giant f***ing bomb I doubt the capsule being filled with pure oxygen was high on your list of concerns, to be honest. There was always risk attached to these launches, the astronauts knew this, and had diced with death many times before as prototype/fighter jet pilots.
Click to expand...
You are the one who claimed to be able to ‘bombard with an absolute deluge of evidence’. I made no claims, yet I’m the deluded smart arse. Thank you.
I merely pointed out that it is and was known that pure oxygen is not a safe atmosphere. If one was sitting on a giant bomb you’d make sure you weren’t at the same time in an oxygen enriched atmosphere.
Saving weight over what alternative? Oxygen is more dense than air so not a very impressive mass saving. Or did those scientists not know that simple fact?
 
pinewaves1868 said:
You are the one who claimed to be able to ‘bombard with an absolute deluge of evidence’. I made no claims, yet I’m the deluded smart arse. Thank you.
I merely pointed out that it is and was known that pure oxygen is not a safe atmosphere. If one was sitting on a giant bomb you’d make sure you weren’t at the same time in an oxygen enriched atmosphere.
Saving weight over what alternative? Oxygen is more dense than air so not a very impressive mass saving. Or did those scientists not know that simple fact?
Click to expand...
:lol: Prove to me we haven't been to the Moon.

If the bomb misfires you could be in a bubble of whatever you want and it would make no difference. As for mass saving, every ounce counted as the thrust of the rocket was limited. They shaved off whatever they could no matter how insignificant it might seem to you.

But come on, prove we haven't been to the Moon. I'm waiting.
EDIT: The alternative wad nitrogen.
You can pressurise a cabin at lower psi with oxygen. This also has a benefit on the number of system consoles needed to maintain the environment which also cuts down on unnecessary weight.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Earth is flat and round. Its flat if you walk on it and its round if you travel around it. The stars in the sky are nice like.
 
Lexingtongue said:
:lol: Prove to me we haven't been to the Moon.

If the bomb misfires you could be in a bubble of whatever you want and it would make no difference. As for mass saving, every ounce counted as the thrust of the rocket was limited. They shaved off whatever they could no matter how insignificant it might seem to you.

But come on, prove we haven't been to the Moon. I'm waiting.
EDIT: The alternative wad nitrogen.
You can pressurise a cabin at lower psi with oxygen. This also has a benefit on the number of system consoles needed to maintain the environment which also cuts down on unnecessary weight.
Click to expand...


No. I don’t perform on demand for many people, certainly not for you. What makes you think things have to be proved to your satisfaction?

You are the one who claimed the capsule atmosphere “atop” the bomb was irrelevant, not me, so it’s whatever you want not whatever I want.

Again using oxygen they weren’t shaving but adding. So the saving is non-existent not insignificant.

Wait as long as you want it’s not a condition of posting to prove anything to your satisfaction, no matter how impressive a deluge you have at your disposal.

Although, with the benefit of hindsight, dismissive and deluded smart arses like me don’t react to petty name-calling in an attempt to diminish others or their opinions. However you crack on.
 
pinewaves1868 said:
No. I don’t perform on demand for many people, certainly not for you. What makes you think things have to be proved to your satisfaction?

You are the one who claimed the capsule atmosphere “atop” the bomb was irrelevant, not me, so it’s whatever you want not whatever I want.

Again using oxygen they weren’t shaving but adding. So the saving is non-existent not insignificant.

Wait as long as you want it’s not a condition of posting to prove anything to your satisfaction, no matter how impressive a deluge you have at your disposal.

Although, with the benefit of hindsight, dismissive and deluded smart arses like me don’t react to petty name-calling in an attempt to diminish others or their opinions. However you crack on.
Click to expand...
You're so uninformed.

The tanks to hold both oxygen and nitrogen as well as the associated hardware and plumbing to deliver them into the crew cabin was be heavy. A single gas system significantly reduced the mass. But that wasn’t all. A dual gas system isn’t as simple as just pumping oxygen and nitrogen into the air. Balancing the gases demanded North American invent some way of measuring the mixture continually, adjusting the mix of gases constantly with every change. If that system failed, the crew might lose consciousness before realizing there was a problem. A pure oxygen system wouldn’t just be lighter, it would be far simpler; all the crew would need was a simple pressure sensor to ensure the cabin was adequately pressurized.
Click to expand...

Using oxygen didn't add weight; go educate yourself, there's so much stuff out there that you could read. You're the one who came in here claiming we'd never been to the moon, man, which tells me all I need to know about you, really.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
scallyban said:
I'm part of the 15%. A visit to the space centre last summer made me doubt it even more. Early 1960's, JFK promised a nation that they would put man on the moon by the end of the decade. In 1967 Apollo 1 killed all 3 astronauts and a complete rethink of the program was required. Then miraculously, 18 months later, they successfully completed their mission. Just managing to keep his promise...
Click to expand...
What do you mean miraculous? They had 400,000 working on it.
Lexingtongue said:
Oxygen was used for saving weight. When you're essentially sat atop a giant f***ing bomb I doubt the capsule being filled with pure oxygen was high on your list of concerns, to be honest. There was always risk attached to these launches, the astronauts knew this, and had diced with death many times before as prototype/fighter jet pilots.
Click to expand...
The capsule was only pressurised to about ⅓ atmosphere in space, so had to be pure oxygen for the astronauts to survive. Hence, for a meaningful plugs out test at ground level the capsule needed to be pressurised to 1⅓ atmospheres in order to maintain the correct pressure differential over the external environment, which made the fire more severe. This was exacerbated by a load of plastic waste that was littering the place that should have been cleared out. In other words, an accident waiting to happen.
pinewaves1868 said:
Saving weight over what alternative? Oxygen is more dense than air so not a very impressive mass saving. Or did those scientists not know that simple fact?
Click to expand...
You use a lot less gas overall using pure oxygen than if it was fully pressurised with 78% nitrogen. Hence the weight saving.
 
Last edited:
Not to show my cards and sway one way or the other but if they did go in 1969, surely they would have returned within the last 51 years? Just seems strange that the last (only maybe?) manned landing on a moon/planet was that long ago, by any country really...
 
While I dont believe in the moon landing being faked (far too many intelligent people would need to be fooled/paid off) I do think that there is a possibility that the photos were staged. They just look too good to have been taken without the right gear. even by todays standards.

I dont think its beyond the realms of possibility that after the landing, they discovered the photos were crap/didnt take and they then made their own. Of course once they did it for one landing, they had to do it for all of them
J_169 said:
Ok didn’t realise that but nothing since 1972? Seems a very long time that’s all
Click to expand...

I said that in another thread.
7 visits was enough to decide there wasnt anything there. Weve been on this planet a long while and we are still finding new mineral resources, and that's with the technology we have today.

When I said it on here someone provided a link to a Nasa bloke who said that they destroyed the technology after the funding was stopped because they didnt want the Russians getting hold of it.
 
Last edited:
TwasOnTheFifthOfMay said:
What do you mean miraculous? They had 400,000 working on it.
Click to expand...
I mean it miraculously fit in with the timescale outlined earlier that decade by JFK, following a catastrophic failure which killed 3 astronauts. I do actually believe man has been to the moon, I'm just sceptical about that visit and I've read and watched plenty on the subject.
 
Lexingtongue said:
:lol: Prove to me we haven't been to the Moon.

If the bomb misfires you could be in a bubble of whatever you want and it would make no difference. As for mass saving, every ounce counted as the thrust of the rocket was limited. They shaved off whatever they could no matter how insignificant it might seem to you.

But come on, prove we haven't been to the Moon. I'm waiting.
EDIT: The alternative wad nitrogen.
You can pressurise a cabin at lower psi with oxygen. This also has a benefit on the number of system consoles needed to maintain the environment which also cuts down on unnecessary weight.
Click to expand...

The Saturn 5 rocket development was fascinating.

The bulk head which separates the two fuels was one of the most challenging aspects of the whole concept. It was forced on the design team as a cost reduction exercise and they were initially appalled as they'd planned on separate tanks.

There was an even more powerful version mooted with significant design phase undertaken.

The cost was simply too high even for the can-do Yanks.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top