darcy , please elaborate

Yeah of course.

If I gave two shits. I don’t even give one.

But you give enough to reply, I’m touched.

I’m touched

indeed…

How so ditch jockey?

https://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2012/dec/13/moon-landings-faked-science-confessions

I remembered this which made me laugh at the time.

Dont forget NASA lost the moon rocks as well. How convenient!

How so ditch jockey

It’s one of the three most likely hypotheses: you’re a troll; you’re being deliberately obtuse; you’re touched (almost obsolete slang suggesting some kind of mental health issue).

I’m not saying this happened Martymac ..but how do you keep a couple of hundred people quiet who were in the know ..well one way to do it would be to pay them fortunes in the first place with a non disclosure agreement attached.. tied in with a very scary threat from a clandestine department of their government..

Feasible ? maybe ..maybe not but stranger things have happened .

cougar, not really. Are you saying the harrier was harder and that they employ a different type of thrust vectoring.

I’m saying – well, actually, I’m saying two things.

Firstly, they are two very different things.  It’s like arguing “why did we develop parachutes when we had skis?”  Difficulty has nothing to do with it.  They are very different things.

Secondly, you’re seemingly wilfully ignoring other people’s explanations.  Not understanding science is fine.  Attempting to refute science because you don’t understand it is just dim.  If you don’t understand it, maybe consider deferring to the notion that people who do understand it know what they’re talking about.

As I said, not a troll and not obtuse, just asking questions to get to the truth. If I don,t see it I will keep asking.

i thought he was referring to mental health. Funny how it’s alright to use that insult when it suits a person.

well one way to do it would be to pay them fortunes in the first place with a non disclosure agreement attached.. tied in with a very scary threat from a clandestine department of their government..

Met the government? Heard of Edward Snowdon, Wikileaks, USSR and the KGB?

At what point do the odds make it more likely that they did

No cougar, those two were thin and did not help me understand. My further question was valid and I await your response, the ski/ parachute analogy doesn’t help either although I understand your implication, surely the forces required for those transport methods are different?

The only way you get to understand is to ask questions if you are unsure of the argument presented. I have not refuted anything just asked more questions.

Dont forget NASA lost the moon rocks as well. How convenient!

They’ve lost a tiny percentage of rock samples (can’t think why anyone might want to steal one), not all of them.  Most of those lost were sent out as samples to places and never returned.

The only way you get to understand is to ask questions if you are unsure of the argument presented. I have not refuted anything just asked more questions.

There is, I used to want to understand everything and work out how and why but as I got older I worked out that there were some good experts out there who had this stuff figured out and I trust them.

No idea as to the odds Mike ..and like I said at the beginning of my post ..Im not saying that happened ..and also at the end with maybe / maybe not ..its just a different way of looking at things ..far fetched ..absolutely ..but then so was the idea of man ever walking on the moon ..<span style=”text-decoration: underline;”></span>

Edit : you believe everything you are told !?

cougar, not really. Are you saying the harrier was harder and that they employ a different type of thrust vectoring.

There have been quite a few attempts to create a jet aircraft that could transition from vertical to horizontal forward flight, and the P.1127/Kestrel/Harrier wasn’t the first to achieve a smooth transition from vertical to horizontal flight, but it was a British aircraft. The Russians tried it, using small jet nozzles on the wingtips, nose and tail. It was a failure. The Americans attempted their own, one a prop-driven aircraft that took off vertically, standing on its tail, with a large contra-rotating prop to propel it. It was a failure as well. It was Rolls Royce who solved the problem using swivelling nozzles on the side of the main jet engine to vector the jet exhaust out of the sides of the plane instead of at the trailing edge of the wings or the tail. This allowed the pilot to balance the jet on its exhaust on take off and landing, then smoothly transition to forward flight by simply swivelling the nozzles becwards. This allowed the plane to rotate while in hover, and fly backwards. The Americans did develop a technique they called ‘viffing’, vectoring in forward flight. This meant the plane could practically go straight up while flying forward at high speed.

Rockets, on the other hand, use the principle of light the blue touch paper and stand well back! Any ability to manoeuvre while in orbit or during landing is via vernier thrusters, small gas jets set in a cross on the sides of the space craft that allow fine tuning of the craft’s motion in zero gravity. This is where Sir Isaac Newton comes in, I believe it was he who formulated the principle of every action having an equal and opposite reaction; set of an explosion in a closed ended tube, the tube will fly off in the opposite reaction. This is how the lunar modules work, and the launch rockets. Simples! You don’t need to know physics to know how how a firework functions, NASA were just using sodding great fireworks.

The Shorts SC.1 VTOL aircraft actually used five jets, one for horizontal flight, four for vertical. It first flew in 1957!

That was linked to the article linked. I thought the exclamation made it clear I was not being serious.

The Russians have some as well. I find the idea that the rocks formed in a similar way to Earth and the implications for planetary development quite interesting, but each to their own.

The only way you get to understand is to ask questions if you are unsure of the argument presented. I have not refuted anything just asked more questions.

With all due respect, it seems that you’re either unable or unwilling to understand.

If your question is “why did the US buy the Harrier when they already had VTOL technology” and the answers you were given are variously “they didn’t have VTOL technology” / “the Harrier was being developed at the same time” / “the Harrier design was a joint design between the US and the UK” then I’m really not sure what else we can add.  You’re never going to get a satisfactory answer to your question because your opening premise is false.

the ski/ parachute analogy doesn’t help either although I understand your implication, surely the forces required for those transport methods are different?

Bingo, now we’re getting somewhere.

That helps count zero. The ability to do it on another ‘planet’ must help with the development of makeing things go up and down in succession though?

No idea as to the odds Mike ..and like I said at the beginning of my post ..Im not saying that happened ..and also at the end with maybe / maybe not ..its just a different way of looking at things ..far fetched ..absolutely ..but then so was the idea of man ever walking on the moon ..

Yep you want to believe. keep adding may, could, might etc. Far fetched would be man invents the rocket, works out how to propel mass upwards, works out telemetry to fire a rocket across Europe before any advanced computer was invented.

We worked out the physics of moving object and have been keeping people living in a capsule in space for years now.

What bit of tech is beyond doing?

Like many of M.J. “moon rocks” o’Hara’s students in the 70s I got to touch the moon and have a good look at thin sections. Spectacular they were. If they didn’t get them from the moon I can’t think of anywhere else they could have found them.

Bsims rocked up a month a go and has posted nothing but dross since. No-one is obliged to engage… .

Cougar,

i may not get a satisfactory answer, that’s how the world works. My pr3mise isn’t false . The Americans must have had knowledge of thrust vectoring on Earth from the lander testing, several others have supplied reasoning which makes sense and will allow me to research further.

i think you are confusing unable to understand with insufficient explanation and dont want to nderstand with really do want to understand.

bsims

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

Thanks educator.

Mike I’m not sure random facts and conjecture is actually helpful unless you really do understand in the first place.

Pick a subject, read the articles and the background and then come back with specific questions.

The ability to do it on another ‘planet’ must help with the development of makeing things go up and down in succession though?

Not entirely sure what point you’re making. Rockets were developed as weapons by the Chinese centuries ago, then used in the eighteenth century, the Congreve rocket, then Werner Von Braun developed the V2, which is where NASA got its technology from. Arthur C Clarke postulated the use of satellites orbiting the earth for scientific and reconnaissance purposes, the Clarke Orbit is named after him. Multi-stage rockets are just a development for getting shit higher up than low Earth orbit. From there, getting complicated shit out to the Moon and further is just scaling up the rockets, like Elon Musk is doing with his Falcon 9 launchers and the next BFR. It’s still just a question of lighting the blue touch paper on the bottom of a bunch of tubes stuffed with volatile substances and standing well back, it ain’t that complicated, complicated is the part where the science and engineering gets a satellite exactly where it’s supposed to be millions of miles away. That’s the really clever bit, that uses orbital gravity slings around planets to slingshot objects even further out into space. Everything else is just BF Fireworks.

The point I’m making is that they learnt how to makes thins go in set directions on command.

Trying to stay on topic:

The person most into conspiracy theories I’ve known in real life had a number of other issues that had nothing to do with educational attainment or even IQ. A thoroughly good bloke but socially a misfit with a mistrust of institutions. A moderate mistrust, an open mind, a propaganda detector and thinking for oneself are positive. Take them too far and they become a handicapping paranoia.

On social media there are the trolls who know what they’re doing and get some kind of kick out of gratuitously winding people up, and then there are the ones who post on forums despite a conviction the whole world is against their absolute truths gleaned from a collection of dodgy sources and the stuff floating around in their heads which even they don’t know where it comes from.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia

My pr3mise isn’t false .

Then there’s nothing further I can add I’m afraid.  You’re comparing apples with oranges and going “why aren’t these things the same?”  The answer is, they aren’t.

Are you saying that because they used a different source to generate thrust the vectoring cannot be compared?

I have not read the whole thread but amI not right in saying that a powerful optical telescope can see the stuff left on the moon by man?  so you can actually see it with your own eyes?

Yes, there are pictures.

although the Martian face pictures weren’t that good – that’s another good conspiracy.

Sorry TJ, unfortunately we don’t have telescopes that good:

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/how-to-see-all-six-apollo-moon-landing-sites/

Educator, was that aimed at me or just a general?

Are you saying that because I mentioned trolls on a forum you think that I think you might be a trolling? Or maybe “aimed at me” means I’m thrust vectoring you? Or whatever.

Just assume it was “general” and turn in for the night, it’s that time and you’ll sleep better.

You’ve made me paranoid now, I’ll never sleep.

Just saw a gl8mpse of the moon as I was looking at the pictures of astronaughts on the moon. How cool would being one of those guys be, you can think ‘ i’ve looked back from there’

Short film on the Lunar Lander Research Vehicle, program started in 1963. Plenty more films on Youtube.

https://youtu.be/091ezcY-mkU

do it on another ‘planet’ must help with the development of makeing things go up and down in succession

The moon lander didn’t “fly” and land onto the moon in the way you’re thinking. They went around it in smaller and smaller circles until they crashed into it softly enough so they would survive. It had nothing to do with controlled V/TOL flight. Besides why would the US go to all the trouble of producing an airplane that they knew we were designing and they had dibbs on if they wanted some? All the benefit, none of the risk

Guys, we are being trolled. Ignore him.

The lunar module had to do one thing, once.(Land and take off from the moon). The Harrier had to last many years. Completely different design requirements.

The lunar module was flown by some of the best test pilots of their generation. Harriers were flown by average (maybe a bit above average) pilots.

You cannot compere the two. I’m sure America could have designed their own version of the Harrier, but why when there was one already available? Compared to other US military planes, they didn’t buy that many Harriers.