Krishna.org Website Statistics

Comments Posted By Clavius

Displaying 1 To 9 Of 9 Comments

Did man really walk on the Moon ???

There are both qualitative and quantitative differences between manned and unmanned space flight.

STMan has discussed some of the quantitative difference: chiefly the masses of the spacecraft. LRO and LCROSS are somewhat anomalous for unmanned spacecraft in that two separate missions shared a launch vehicle, and the LCROSS impactor is designed to have a certain specific parasitical mass.

The Chandrayaan-1 spacecraft had a takeoff mass of just under 1400 kg. That’s expected for that type of mission.

The Apollo CSM mass was over 30,000 kg and the LM just under 15,000. Why so much? Because the Apollo missions were intended to do so much more than an unmanned flight, such as keep three men alive for two weeks, perform a soft landing on the lunar surface and return, and to land the crew safely on Earth. All those tasks require machinery and supplies that have mass.

In other words, the typical Apollo mission payload was more than 30 times the mass of a typical unmanned spacecraft. The Saturn V was the only American rocket built that could deliver that much payload to the Moon. Roughly for each kilogram of payload, some 20 kg of fuel is required in the Earth launch vehicle. After the Saturn V was discontinued, there was no rocket powerful enough to deliver a manned spacecraft to the Moon. However there are plenty of medium-lift boosters in the world’s space fleets to deliver 1,000 kg or so to the Moon.

The qualitative difference is in the expected reliability of manned versus unmanned rockets. Morally we require manned vehicles to operate more reliably than unmanned vehicles. We reduce the reliability of unmanned launch vehicles in order to put them within the reach of most customers. Typically a 1 in 20 failure rate is tolerable for an unmanned launch vehicle.

For a manned launch vehicle we aim for something along the lines of 1 in 300 or better. Reliability costs money, and high reliability costs a whole lot of money. If you can build a 99-percent reliable launch vehicle for $10 million, one that’s 99.5-percent reliable may cost $100 million or more. Each small increment of expected reliability turns out to be a large multiple on the development and operating cost. Hence we don’t develop human-rated space flight technology until there’s a clear need to use it.

So just because we can send a small expendable robot to the Moon on an existing workaday booster doesn’t mean we can resume manned flights with no additional effort. To try to compare Chandrayaan-1 and Apollo as if they were equivalent missions is misguided.

» Posted By Clavius On September 1, 2009 @ 5:17 am

To be more specific, the Amsterdam museum assumed for years that they had a genuine Moon rock. However visitors noticed that it did not resemble any of the Apollo samples. With suspicion thus aroused, scientists were able to very quickly and conclusively determine that the stone in the museum was not a Moon rock. Until then, no such study had been done.

Real Apollo samples all have identification numbers that allow them to be curated by NASA, even though they may reside in other parts of the world. There is an Apollo sample in my city, with the ID number clearly present on its permanent encapsulation. This can be traced back through NASA records to determine exactly what mission collected it and where.

The Amsterdam specimen had no such provenance. That is, curators could not produce any NASA documentation relating it to the Apollo sample catalogue. When the story of its delivery to the Netherlands was recounted, it was discovered that the gift occurred very shortly after the Apollo 11 mission, long prior to the time that any samples were released from NASA custody.

In short, there was absolutely no valid reason for the Amsterdam museum to believe they possessed an actual Apollo Moon rock. Their gullibility is the issue here, not any allegation of wrongdoing by NASA. I can pick up any rock in my backyard and try to sell it as a Moon rock. Caveat emptor.

» Posted By Clavius On August 28, 2009 @ 9:26 pm

No, you’re grasping at straws to reject the evidence that’s been presented. There is no mystery, at least among the people who understand these sciences. You put your faith in conspiracy theorists because they put a pseudo-intellectual veneer over your desired belief. If you want to believe, upon a religious basis, that the Moon landings were fake, then express that faith. But don’t try to make it sound like a scientific argument if the science doesn’t take you there.

You try to portray science as some sort of “religion” where the practitioners are cowed into silence. This is not at all how science proceeds. The fundamental tenet of science is that even the most apparently solid fact is merely a “theory” and can be upset at any time if the proper evidence comes along. Scientists who challenge the status quo and present the proper evidence to support it are hailed as heroes, not dismissed as mavericks. Scientists routinely review each other’s work dispassionately. But instead you have to present that caricature of science in order to find some way to sidestep the glaring fact that no one who has been properly trained in the relevant sciences agrees with you.

You’re not a scientist and you’re not an engineer. If it really isn’t important to you whether people landed on the Moon or not, then kindly let us do our jobs without being maliciously attacked.

» Posted By Clavius On August 13, 2009 @ 5:31 am

Why, with “unlimited funds,” could not NASA have succeeded in its stated mission to land on the Moon? You ascribe to NASA near omnipotence in faking the Moon landings, but you will not allow them that power when considering the proposition that they succeeded. NASA is clever and capable, in your mind, only when playing out YOUR scenario. You’ve simply decided that NASA faked it, and you’re trying to backfill an argument toward that conclusion.

Saying these radio signals can be faked with aircraft or by bouncing them off the Moon itself is highly naive. Have you asked any actual radiotelescope operators whether that claim is credible? Have you ever operated a radiotelescope? As a scientific man I CANNOT figure out a way to fake the radio signals convincingly, and neither can Mike Dinn of Australia, who has been a radiotelescope operator for many decades. I don’t have the responsibility to work out exactly how it was done; you’re the one claiming it’s easy so you please tell us, and please get verification from actual practitioners regarding whether your scheme would work. Don’t just guess that it would.

You keep saying I and others “have faith” in NASA. In fact you put your faith in known charlatans such as David Percy and Ralph Rene to spoon-feed you unscientific arguments, and in your unfounded layman’s supposition that the details of faking the Moon landings are “not a very difficult thing to do.” My faith resides in my 25 years’ experience engineering machinery for space. I don’t rely on the principles of space travel simply because NASA says so. I rely on them because they’re proven to work.

I challenged you in another post that you deleted to provide the names of qualified practitioners in the relevant sciences that agree with you. Can you do this? Or is it in fact the case that the world’s scientific and engineering communities universally accept that Apollo was authentic?

» Posted By Clavius On August 11, 2009 @ 1:41 pm

An orbiting CSM/LM stack would be the third brightest object in the sky, aside from the Moon and Venus. It would appear to be moving very fast. Can you explain why there were no unexplained sightings of an orbiting spacecraft during the time in which you claim the CSM/LM were in low Earth orbit?

Radio contact with the spacecraft was maintained by large radiotelescopes that cannot slew fast enough to track a LEO object. What were these telescopes locked into instead? How was line-of-sight radio contact maintained with a low orbiting spacecraft in 1969? Or were all the various radio operators in all those different countries part of the hoax?

There is plenty of evidence that Apollo was real. It’s what you and others are scrambling to explain away.

As for why we cannot immediately return to the Moon, you deleted my post which explained this. Please restore it or stop raising the point in your own posts.

» Posted By Clavius On August 10, 2009 @ 2:16 pm

The space shuttle and other manned spacecraft orbit much higher than 20 miles.

If you examine the post-flight reports, you’ll find that there were significant mistakes, failures, and exceptions on all Apollo flights except for Apollo 17. In the case of Apollo 13 the astronauts were placed in extreme danger and the Moon landing had to be aborted.

The most dangerous parts of any space flight are the launch and landing. Every space flight has one of those, no matter how far away you go. We don’t go to the Moon because there is no public mandate to do it. It has little to do with technology. We have not maintained the specialized equipment such a journey requires, so it will take some time to resurrect and extend it.

» Posted By Clavius On August 8, 2009 @ 3:17 pm

Remote-control cameras. The designs for them are quite easily obtainable, were published widely at the time, and are completely comprehensible to any engineer.

» Posted By Clavius On July 19, 2009 @ 5:16 pm

The photographic film was the Kodak E-3 emulsion on the polyester Estar base. Estar was developed for high-altitude and space use, first in spy satellites and then in high-altitude aircraft. However the thermal environment for the film was simply not as egregious as the conspiracy theorists make out; there are limited heat transfer paths involving the film in its magazine. Your questions:

1. See the dosage figures on my site at http://www.clavius.org/envsun.html . It is worth noting that Skylab astronauts actually had higher dosages due to their frequent traversal of the Southern Atlantic anomaly, a low-hanging portion of the Van Allen belts.

2. Photographic film and human tissue have different tolerances and responses to ionizing radiation. The Hasselblad 500/EL camera body was specified in the NASA statement of work to be shielded so as to withstand an exposure of 600 rads without damage to the film. I have inspected the cameras personally and found them to be sufficiently shielded. The human LD 50/30 lethal dose (the dose required to cause death in 50 percent of the population within 30 days) is 450 rem. Compare that to the miniscule amounts the astronauts received.

3. The astronauts have largely suffered from normal aging effects. The sample size is too small to collect any statistically significant correlation to radiation effects, but as the astronauts were exposed to minimal radiation during their voyage it is not really an issue.

The notion that the world outside the Van Allen belts is a searing radiation hell is largely a fabrication of the conspiracy theorists. During periods of solar quiescence the radiation environment is not especially hazardous over a two-week period. The conspiracy theorists can produce ZERO qualified astrophysicists who will endorse their claim that the radiation environment would have precluded trips to the Moon. Noted physicist Dr. James Van Allen has specifically repudiated the hoax theory on this point, calling it “nonsense.”

There is indeed enough information to settle the matter, and it falls unanimously on the side of Apollo being authentic.

» Posted By Clavius On July 14, 2009 @ 9:29 pm

David Percy grossly overestimates his credentials.

Yes, he is a member of RPS, but that is open to amateurs and may be granted, for example, solely on the basis of artistic merit and not technical skill.

The only award David Percy lists is fourth runner-up to a BAFTA award. No other evidence of awards has been presented. One of Percy’s resumes lists him as the producer of the BBC “Mind Mapping” set of videos, but the official credits from BBC list no “David Percy” among any of the participants.

Percy claims to be a professional photographer, but no evidence of any professional work has been presented. In fact, many professional photographers whose credentials are NOT debatable have called Percy’s work and conclusions into question.

Percy has absolutely no training or experience in the science of photographic interpretation and analysis, which is a separate field from photography. Percy’s methods by which he has examined the Apollo photographs are simply made-up and bear no resemblance to how photo analysts actually work.

I on the other hand have formal training and experience in the science of photographic interpretation. My work has been published in the prestigious journal “Science” and I have appeared on National Geographic and on UK Channel 4, as well as on the TV program “Mythbusters.” I have attempted at several occasions to quiz Percy on his techniques and conclusions, but he always avoids it. He has declined two separate invitations to defend his findings against my comments on international television.

Nor has this “professional photographer” managed to duplicate the Apollo photographs in his studio, using the methods he theorizes were used to fake the photos. He merely provides diagrams or rough descriptions — no detail or rigor.

Percy has NOT studied all the Apollo video, as he claims. He has been caught on two separate occasions claiming the video suspiciously did not contain certain things (e.g., astronauts jumping great heights), when legitimate Apollo historians can find such examples in just minutes.

David Percy’s only prior publication is a science fiction novel. Mary Bennett is neither a scientist nor a photo analyst: she is a self-proclaimed psychic. Yet these uneducated, unqualified people managed to find something all the world’s finest experts seem to have missed!

He will not answer questions submitted either in writing or verbally. What does David Percy have to hide? Perhaps his own charlatanism?

The claim that Stanley Kubrick faked the video comes from an old joke that circulated on the Internet in the 1990s. The hoax believers simply take it seriously.

» Posted By Clavius On July 13, 2009 @ 5:06 am

«« Back To Stats Page

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 

6 Responses to Krishna.org Website Statistics

  1. Govind says:

    Hare krishna Prabhuji.,Dandvat Pranaam
    May i know about the author of the book”Srila Prabhupada Lilamrita As It Is” named mukund das prabhu.Had he any personal association with Srila Prabhupada.

    • This book is a compilation of direct quotes from Srila Prabhupada speaking about his own life. The author is Srila Prabhuapda, all Mukunda did was compile the quotes and he did a good job of it. He wrote a bit of rubbish on the last 2 pages but apart from that he did not write a single word in the book. It is a collection of Prabhupada quotes and the author of this book is Srila Prabhuapda.

  2. Vamshi says:

    Prabhu Madhudvisa Dasa.Is Jagannath Krishna himself or is just an expansion of Krishna like Vishnu,Rama etc.In Iskcon lectures I heard that Jagannath is Krishna himself,they have proved this by saying a story from Skanda purana.Is this true or Iskcon lectures are just bogus?I found no video Prabhupad talking aboyt Lord Jagannath.Oh Prabhu kindly answer my doubts.Hare Krishna

    • Yes. Lord Jagannatah is Krishna Himself. It is Jagannatha [Krishna] Balarama and Krishna’s sister Subhadra.

      So Jagannatha is deity form of Krishna. He is representation of Krishna with His brother Balarama and sister Subhadra,

      It is deity manifestation of Krishna, Balarama and Lady Subhadra,

  3. tanu says:

    Jai Govind

    I request you clear my doubts.I understand the complexities of life processes,cellular mechanisms and other natural phenomenon cannot be explained solely by reasoning and scientific theories as somewhere or other our knowledge is limited.I am a science student nd nature lover.After reading the article posted by you regarding the concept of the origin of life,a question arisen in my mind that krishna is all powerful,then, why he designed this universe in this complicated way?,why life originated? why he made all that dna etc matter space?what is his true nature? why are we given these bodies these reasoning abilities?why krishna waited for billions of years and made us take birth here?why prakrati and purush got seperated? who were those dinosaurs etc for souls are eternal were those dinosaurs primitive and other organisms we only? are there any planet lest earth having life?why will happen atlast for we are ultimately destined to reach our eternal govind? why doesn’t he appears now and clear all these doubts for one thing is sure that if even he messages in some ways we will submit to him?why krishna is so naughty why has he made everything complicated?I know these are childlish questions but still worthy to be answered…..

    I am a krishana devotee.I feel as if there is pure love for him deep in my heart.But at the same time I do believe in science.Sometimes i find myself stuck in between science emotions belief and devotion.I want to understand my Govind,I want to understand myself.

    I request my friends to please give answer to these questions.I hope i will get atleast answers of a few questions as i found this site quite appealing.

    thankyou!
    Radhe krishna

    • Hare Krishna Jai Govind

      To clear your doubts you have to become Krishna conscious. Because unless you become Krishna conscious you will not be able to understand what Krishna consciousness is and you will remain continually bewildered.

      All these questions are irrelevant. You seem to accept that Govinda exists, that He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Now you have to just surrender to the idea that you are His servant. And then you need to find out practically how you can engage in the service of Krishna. And to find out how to do this you need to read Srila Prabhupada’s books. And in the process of becoming Krishna conscious all your other questions will automatically be answered.

      The scientists can not understand anything. They only have very fragmental information about everything they study. The information we can gather through our material senses is very limited. There are so many things we can not perceive through our material senses. So they can not understand what they can not perceive.

      So instead of just speculating all these questions and being bewildered like this it is better to just admit that in our conditioned state with our very limited mind and our material senses we can not hope to understand Krishna or even this material world which is created ultimately by Krishna.

      The way to understand these things is to become Krishna conscious. We can not understand without becoming Krishna conscious.

      So you have to learn how to become Krishna conscious… That is the answer to all your questions. And Krishna consciousness is a science and that science is very elaborately presented in the books of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada.

      Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

      Madhudvisa dasa

Back to Top ↑