I started skimmimg about halfway through, but one item I noticed was his comparison of the distance through space to the moon being so much farther than what we currently accomplish with contemporary launch vehicles.
His argument was asking how we could send a vehicle through thousands of miles of space in the 60s when we can only do a few hundred in 2020.
This argument is entirely naive of the concept of gravity wells and that the initial push away from a planet is the most difficult (energy intensive).
Ok. I mean believability is subjective, so while it seems reasonable to me, it might not to you.
But remember that acceleration due to gravity drops off as an inverse square from the center of the Earth. So it gets much, much easier to push away from Earth the farther out you get.
And moving more than 500 mi from Earth isn't because of a hard energetic limit. It's because nobody's wanted to sink the money into a modern manned moon mission.
Other countries have sent probes to the moon, so it's been proven physically possible by other parties. Unless those are hoaxes too?
Congrats on dismantling one paragraph of hundreds when stripped of all context.
Read the entire thing and if your takeaway is still “I know more about the moon landing than this guy” you ain’t it son.
Not saying "I know more", but I've looked through a lot of the article now, and the gut knows history but not physics. For example, in the second installment, he takes issue with the heating cooling system in the LEM. First, you don't need a heater. The LEM was like a thermos bottle in near vacuum. Body and equipment heat would have been enough. Second, cooling was supposedly accomplished through water sublimation. Pump water to some external plates and it sublimates away taking heat with it. I'm not saying NASA couldn't lie about it, but you can't use it as proof that LEM temp control was impossible as the author does.
Holy crap that's a rambling article with very little in the way of valid technical argument.
Why not both? :P
What do you disagree with?
I started skimmimg about halfway through, but one item I noticed was his comparison of the distance through space to the moon being so much farther than what we currently accomplish with contemporary launch vehicles.
His argument was asking how we could send a vehicle through thousands of miles of space in the 60s when we can only do a few hundred in 2020.
This argument is entirely naive of the concept of gravity wells and that the initial push away from a planet is the most difficult (energy intensive).
Ok. I mean believability is subjective, so while it seems reasonable to me, it might not to you.
But remember that acceleration due to gravity drops off as an inverse square from the center of the Earth. So it gets much, much easier to push away from Earth the farther out you get.
And moving more than 500 mi from Earth isn't because of a hard energetic limit. It's because nobody's wanted to sink the money into a modern manned moon mission.
Other countries have sent probes to the moon, so it's been proven physically possible by other parties. Unless those are hoaxes too?
Congrats on dismantling one paragraph of hundreds when stripped of all context. Read the entire thing and if your takeaway is still “I know more about the moon landing than this guy” you ain’t it son.
Not saying "I know more", but I've looked through a lot of the article now, and the gut knows history but not physics. For example, in the second installment, he takes issue with the heating cooling system in the LEM. First, you don't need a heater. The LEM was like a thermos bottle in near vacuum. Body and equipment heat would have been enough. Second, cooling was supposedly accomplished through water sublimation. Pump water to some external plates and it sublimates away taking heat with it. I'm not saying NASA couldn't lie about it, but you can't use it as proof that LEM temp control was impossible as the author does.