Would the Apollo Moon astronauts have been frozen then cooked like chicken-in-a-bag - One Star Warrior unveiled - page 28

Counterpoint (in advance of halcyon Daze chiming in)

They obviously were not worried about the weight of the dune buggy on board, because NASA assured them they could carry it, and by golly they did it with no problem. The proof is - they did it.

They didn't have to show us how objects spin in 1/6 g because we already know how they would spin in 1/6 g. And just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

They didn't have to jump 6 feet in the air because we know they could have if they wanted to. They didn't do it because it was an unnecessary risk. After all they were there. And that proves it. And just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Right. Actual motion pictures taken from the moon should look absolutely surreal. Instead we get some video that could be taken on earth, with men hooked up to hidden bungee cords, slowed down by 50%. Not much of a show.

IDW (User ID: 68887737), in your professional opinion, what had more chance of success:

1) the NASA's Lunar Lander; or,
2) the Doc's DeLorean time machine in Back to the Future?

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

to the best of your knowledge, IDW, did the Lunar Lander have any part approximating the flux capacitor? That could be how the excessive heat was dissipated.

[link to backtothefuture.wikia.com]

just trying to help guys :)

I don't mind that the US faked the moon landings; but i want someone to get there- irrespective of who it is- to tell me what's there; and, most especialy, i want to know about the dark side of the moon, orbital lock my foot, there must be bases on that side.

A real missed opportunity on the rock/boulder front. They could have performed pirouettes- like Baryshnikov- with boulder aloft, called it moon ballerina, simultaneously sticking it to the Russians on the scientific front and the artistic front. Imagine the gold medal for that routine :
D.

I don't give a damned what else I did, If I had landed on the moon, i would have lifted a huge ass rock above my head, if for no other reason than to have something to show the grandkids and put on the wall in the den next to the hole-in-one plaque.

It's going off topic again, can I remind everyone please that this thread is only concerning the thermal environment, first post -



A free ranging thread about Apollo will wander all over the place and never move closer to understanding the thermal environment. There are plenty of other Apollo threads, or why not start one of your own?

IDW, you are writing essays again, why not get to the point or start your own threads with what you want to say. You did say you were done with this thread, it looks like you want to write a book here.

K

I don't know all their heights, there were restrictions

[link to science.ksc.nasa.gov]

Initially under 5'11" then later raised to under 6'. Google tells me A11 crew were 5'11, 5'11 and 5'10

BTW Gagarin was 5'2", which was a big plus on Vostok.

K

Which is dissipated by friction and ends up as heat inside the LM.


You have to think of it as a system with a boundary. The only energy that can leave that is not through the sublimator or radiated through the skin would be some radio energy, some light through the windows and heat carried by purged cabin air.



I agree the batteries would not be completely drained, are you batting for NASA now??? The batteries were specced in terms of usable power, 65kWh for eary LM, 77kWh for the j series. Electronic components sat on cold plates, can't post a picture because of GLP censor. Batteries were on cold rails, both cooled in the cooling loop.

K

Sorry, back on topic. Did Neil Armstrong wear thermal underwear? Further, did he remove ‘one of truth’s protective layers’ as the hot surface of the moon began to heat up the lunar module?
The fascinating question here is how he removed his underwear while wearing the spacesuit- seems kind of bulky to me for such a delicate task. I wonder if they’re running a nudist colony up there on the moon and the enthusiastic Armstrong was spruiking it. Weird times we live in, folks.

Covered by the outer skin, not inside the pressure cabin, you can see the position in the engineering drawings I posted the link for. The vents are visible at the rear edge of the flat top section of the ascent stage in photographs.


It's a self regulating process. If the sublimator ices up to the extent that restricts water flow into the unit then its ability to remove heat by sublimation drops below the heat being supplied by the cooling loop heating up the whole unit. So ice is removed until the sublimator water flow reaches a level high enough to match the heat supplied from the cooling loop. If the sublimator water doesn't freeze in or on the plate then then the water vapourises when in contact with the plate removing heat at a higher rate then the cooling loop can supply it due to the higher sublimator water flow rate ( no ice to slow the flow ) rapidly cooling the whole unit, this is what happens when the sublimator is first exposed to the vacuum.

Remember the net heat removed from the system is equal to the heat of vapourisation because the water is usually being frozen before sublimation ( but can vapourise directly from water for the same net heat removal ). Do you think the current sublimators as used on the ISS spacesuits don't work?

Please learn how to use the quotes system, its' not hard.

K

As usual, a quick google shows idw to be in error...



emittance

Thermal emittance or thermal emittivity is the ratio of the radiant emittance of heat of a specific object or surface to that of a standard black body. Emissivity and emittivity are both dimensionless quantities given in the range of 0 to 1, but emissivity refers to a material property (of a homogeneous material), while emittivity refers to specific samples or objects.
(from [link to en.wikipedia.org]

Emittance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not to be confused with Immittance.

Emittance may refer to:

Beam emittance
Radiant emittance
Thermal emittance
(from [link to en.wikipedia.org]

and because idw doesnt believe in wiki


emittance
[ih-mit-ns]

Examples
Word Origin

noun, Optics.
1.
the total flux emitted per unit area.
Compare luminous emittance, radiant emittance.
(from [link to dictionary.reference.com]



emittance
Tweet
noun emit·tance \ē-ˈmi-tən(t)s\
Definition of EMITTANCE
1
: the energy radiated by the surface of a body per second per unit area
2
: emissivity
"Unboil an egg": a phrase about the
impossible, which is not possible. »
First Known Use of EMITTANCE
1940
(from [link to www.merriam-webster.com]

I cant be bothered looking for it, but idw also claimed that the terms that dont exist also never appeared before 2004 or something like that)- note that both dictionary.com and websters disagree, claiming first usage in 1940

So you picked up on Kirchoff's thermal law but don't understand it yet?

"For a body of any arbitrary material, emitting and absorbing thermal electromagnetic radiation at every wavelength in thermodynamic equilibrium, the ratio of its emissive power to its dimensionless coefficient of absorption is equal to a universal function only of radiative wavelength and temperature, the perfect black-body emissive power."


You missed the vital part at any given temperature

It's really funny that you still don't get this
Thread: Would the Apollo Moon astronauts have been frozen then cooked like chicken-in-a-bag - One Star Warrior unveiled - page 28 (Page 22)

The emissivity of a surface is equal to its absorptivity for a given temperature. So polished alluminium absorbs and emits thermal radiation with an effective efficiency of 0.03. If you could heat aluminium to 5800 K and keep it in the same solid state it would absorb and emit radiation with an effective efficiency of 0.09. 5800 K is the black body temperature of the Sun and the solar absorptivity of polished aluminium is 0.09. That obeys Kirchoff's law perfectly but there is no requirement in Kirchoff's law for a bodies emissivity at 100 K to be the same as it is at 1000 K. Here is a chart of emissivity varying with temperature for various substances [link to www.tvu.com]


Better at radiating thermal energy than they are at absorbing solar energy.


It is not possible for a body in thermal equilibrium to be better at absorbing than emitting energy with the same black body temperature as itself. It can however be better of worse at absorbing energy with a higher black body temperature ( like the Sun's 5800 K temperature ) than it is at absorbing or emitting energy in the range of a few hundred K. Here, again is a table showing some substances that do this.
[link to www.redrok.com]


No for any given wavelength. a100=e100 absorptivity of heat with a 100 K black body peak = emissivity of heat of that body at 100 K for bodies in thermal equilibrium. a1000 = e1000 but a1000 does not have to equal e100.


No one is arguing with this.


You have learned nothing. How do I get this through, solar absorptivity ( 5800 K peak ) does not have to equal thermal emisivity ( 300 K peak ) that is the whole point of thermal control surfaces.
[link to www.aztechnology.com]
Round and round we go, will you ever learn?


Oh my God, this is actually correct, is this you saying this or the other guy, Windley? Have you actually got it after all these months??? and to be precise it is the absorption and emission of thermal energy, not transmission


Again, wonders never cease!! To clarify for a body in thermal equilibrium i.e. not heating or cooling because of an imbalance in absorbed or emitted energy.


Yes polished aluminium gets hot, it is a selective surface with an a/e ratio of 3, good thermal control surfaces have an a/e ratio of around 0.1


And then the dumb returns. AZ tells you in that PDF you need 130 microns of paint, 85% coverage to give the a and e numbers they quote, paint it on anything you like.

You were doing so well for a minute there, never mind.


Quantify this limit, AZ says 130 microns of paint will meet their specs, and 130 microns FEP or polyimide turns aluminium into an effective second surface mirror.
[link to www.sheldahl.com]
Show your numbers to back your claim, otherwise its bullshit!

I am not Windley, talk to him if you want. Second surface mirrors work because the selected transparent plastic absorbs little sunlight allowing it to be reflected off the aluminium substrate and back into space ( aluminium a = 0.09 ) but the plastics ( like kapton ) have a high e ( 0.9+ ) allowing them to radiate thermal energy ( or absorb thermal energy ) very effectively.



Totally wrong

polished aluminium a=0.09 e=0.03 a/e ratio 3
chromic acid anodised aluminium a=0.14 e=0.84 a/e ratio 0.17

So anodised aluminium will have a much lower equilibrium temperature in the Sun in the vacuum of space.

K

With all due respect, that is EXACTLY what Windley and you are trying to say,with that entire point by point response. You repeated things I obviously knew, while appearing to believe you are educating me. (and I am sorry for taking the thread off topic with the Australian AC, but he made an interesting observation)




Well, yes it does with a body in equilibrium.


I have no problem learning. The question is, will you see the irony in your comments?


Oh my God, this is actually correct, is this you saying this or the other guy, Windley? Have you actually got it after all these months??? and to be precise it is the absorption and emission of thermal energy, not transmission


I am not sure exactly what your point is. We 're not talking about in a specific wavelength, I'm talking about overall. And that's the only important consideration!




Don't be condescending. When push comes to shove,my computations are more accurate than your own. It's not my understanding that is flawed, it's your interpretations of it.


Well, thanks for getting that anyway.



There you go again, MAJIK PAINT. You CANNOT ignore the thermodynamic qualities of the object underneath the paint.
This is a fundamental error.


NOT POSSIBLE. The paint does not change the properties of aluminum.





No one said you were Windley, but you ARE defending his BS claims. The aluminum under that transparent paint has not altered it's properties because it is painted.


Totally wrong

polished aluminium a=0.09 e=0.03 a/e ratio 3
chromic acid anodised aluminium a=0.14 e=0.84 a/e ratio 0.17

So anodised aluminium will have a much lower equilibrium temperature in the Sun in the vacuum of space.

K


Anodizing aluminum creates an oxide at the surface less than a thousandth of an inch thick that has totally different properties than aluminum, and is of course opaque. Your figures are for this surface, not the aluminum underneath it. There are no majik surfaces. Anodized aluminum WILL have a lower equilibrium temperature, but not a whole lot different, mainly the difference will be in how long it takes to reach equilibrium temperature, very useful for an orbital satellite but useless on an extended exposure.

And you were doing so well ..... :(

You can't be that dense ...sigh.....

I am not even going to try and sort out your quotes again, why haven't you even got the hang of that?

I thought, briefly, that you were starting to understand but never mind. I think you are on this schedule.

Thread: Would the Apollo Moon astronauts have been frozen then cooked like chicken-in-a-bag - One Star Warrior unveiled - page 28 (Page 17)

No one has time for that. I would be interested to know if you think these products [link to www.aztechnology.com] are some sort of scam set up to fool you and now that you have found the Wikipedia page on Kirchoff's thermal law maybe you think this

"Average and overall absorptivity and emissivity data are often given for materials with values which differ from each other. For example, white paint is quoted as having an absorptivity of 0.16, while having an emissivity of 0.93 This is because the absorptivity is averaged with weighting for the solar spectrum, while the emissivity is weighted for the emission of the paint itself at normal ambient temperatures. The white paint will serve as a very good insulator against solar radiation, because it is very reflective of the solar radiation, and although it therefore emits poorly in the solar band, its temperature will be around room temperature, and it will emit whatever radiation it has absorbed in the infrared, where its emission coefficient is high."
[link to en.wikipedia.org]

was added by me, just to fool you. I think I have reached the point were I see your posts as not much more than noise form someone who is so far away with the fairies you probably qualify for residency.

K

this is a bit convoluted and over-wrought, but it helps.

I'm not sure who's correct regarding the science; but i know that NASA faked the moon landing. That aside (and I understand the full irony of such a statement), I’d like to draw your attention to a concept called 'god of the gaps', which i think is applicable equally to the moon landings as it is to theology, where it originates.

[link to en.wikipedia.org]
[link to rationalwiki.org]
I think the GOTGs (god of the gaps) method is flawed- both in religion and in the moon landings. It is a fool's errand to search for gaps in an explanation on which to pitch your tent, before being evicted, only to then move on to the next clearing to pitch your circus tent and reconvene the 'true believers' for more stupidity.

Therefore, as a preliminary- though, in my eyes, mistaken- conclusion what we have is:
1) IDW is a true believer- a god of the gaps adherent, as evidenced by his nit-picking NASA’s explanations and seeking gaps; and,
2) I, personally, think true believers are nut-jobs chasing after fairies in science’s gaps.
3) Therefore, I think IDW is a nutjob.
This is a false conclusion, which I don’t agree with. I’ll try to further clarify it.

1) One man's gap (missing evolutionary fossil) is another man's mysterious abode for god (GOTGs).
2) One man's gap (IDW’s claimed lack of satisfying explanation for thermal dissipation (thus, faked moon landing)) is another man's (K Hall’s) you-didn't-read-the-evidence-properly argument (thus, we did land on the moon).

The problem is that:
1) Whereas in the religion example it is science pitted against religion,
2) in the moon landing example it is science pitted against science- an argument over the science of the moon landing itself.
But, more appropriately, it seems to be ideology pitted against ideology- the politicisation of science, which we see, amply and unfortunately, in climate change denialism. The cold war comes to mind here, where we leave behind science and engage in politics instead, kind of like politics over policy. That seems to be the only explanation for the confusion over what should be straightforward and easily explained scientific phenomena. It is really odd, therefore, that despite the fact that the science of the moon landing should be really easy to settle, no world powers (China, Russia) seem to be interested in taking an independent, objective, open analysis of the moon landings. The USA and allies could not possibly independently undertake such an analysis for obvious reasons.
This was a bit of a digression.

The onus of proof is on:
1) science to prove Darwinian evolution; and,
2) on NASA to prove the mechanics behind the moon landings.
Oddly enough, where, in the religion example, the theist would seek gaps in the consistency, systematicity of Darwinian evolutionary theory- into which to insert their god of the gaps- the sceptic, in the moon landing example, requires more, not less, science of NASA, not seeking to replace NASA’s scientific explanations with fairies (as theists do, by enthusiastically inserting god into gaps). The NASA sceptic requires a filling-in the gaps with robust, rigorous scientific explanation, claiming NASA is failing to do so. In fact, it is the NASA true believers who, IDW’s accusation goes, are inserting fairies into the explanations, just as theists wait with excitement to find spaces for their god of the gaps. What we have, then, is a vying for the throne of science. Does, that is, science legitimate:
1) the NASA claims of a genuine moon landing? Or,
2) the sceptic’s claim of a faked moon landing?
This is quite a different goal to the theist’s desire to, far from court it, dismiss science altogether and replace it with theology.

Basically, the issue here turns on the idea of ‘gaps’. The theist, committed to a GOTGs methodology, claims the gaps are unexplainable, irreconcilable, insurmountable- much to their glee. IDW, the moon landing sceptic, claims, however, that NASA’s science gaps are unexplainable, irreconcilable, insurmountable, too, but he does not seek to replace science for something else- he does not dismiss science as such- he merely dismisses NASA’s claimed moon landing science. IDW is holding a particular scientific claim (moon landing) to account with science itself, whereas the theist is holding science to account with theism.
The odd and confusing issue here, though, is that if you dismiss the science of the moon landing, then you find in favour of a faked moon landing. That is like dismissing Darwinian evolution and finding in favour of religion (god, fairies and angels).
Thus, to come full circle, is IDW seeking fairies and angels? Is IDW a nutjob? No, for as we said above, he is remaining within the orbit of science, but he is attempting to disabuse, disillusion and expose a hoax where others are using science for a false claim: genuine moon landing.
I think this is the pertinent argument here, because a dismissal of the moon landing as a hoax sees one ridiculed, even by people like presidents. So, the culture is one where the moon landing has monopolised science- come to be identified with it, identified with scientific and technical superiority- and if you dismiss the moon landing as a hoax, you must, therefore, the argument goes, by a luddite and stupid- just like backward yokels who dismiss Darwinism and seek god. But this is a critical point where ideology and science are conflated:
1) America’s moon landing; and,
2) The supremacy of science over religion, are
3) Crucially, the identification of the US moon landing with scientific superiority, correctness, truth, and morality.
This last point is the most vital, which brings us to the truth of this whole matter: the cold war. The USA wanted to assert cultural supremacy over the USSR- capitalism lands men on moons, communism doesn’t. Politicians, ideologues lie. Nixon was president during the moon landings, for crying out loud LOL! Are we to trust Watergate landed men on the moon? So, searching for thermal this or that is not really relevant in this geopolitical context. However, ironically, it was the scientific scepticism by people like IDW, which, in the very first place, confirmed for me the hoax, a science which I now do not even require to know what I know, what I always should have known- that it was all cold war fakery. In fact, I am the one who now has become the true believer- at least IDW is keen on the science of it, for I couldn’t give a stuff about the science, I am as committed as the most die-hard Jesus freak of the idea the moon landing was faked ROFLMAO!

So, it is not IDW but NASA who are the fairy-seeking nutjob GOTGs true believers seeking to convert the rest of us to their weird cult.
1) NASA are trying to give us the redemptive cultural illusion to sedate the masses, satiate their nationalistic appetite and build up the spirit of a people for more cannon fodder.
2) IDW is onto the science and can see the technical farce.
3) But where the fuck does this all leave me, the nutjob true believer, having gone beyond science but dismissing god? Up the creek without a paddle, a postmodern nihilist singing Mickey Mouse. One day we’ll long for those faked moon landing days.



************** No lyrics or copyright material please************************

Calin
Mod

Last Edited by calin on 04/12/2015 12:25 PM

But you are a fool who would step into a filled bathtub with a hairdryer.

Here's another post where you say "give a damned". Remember, you asked me to.

Your ignorance is astounding.

My friend's girlfriend was killed about 15 years ago when her hair dryer fell into the bathtub while she was taking a shower.

Mythbusters already covered this.
[link to www.discovery.com]

Please stop spouting off about things you know nothing about.



Where do you get your information?

Your ignorance is astounding.

My friend's girlfriend was killed about 15 years ago when her hair dryer fell into the bathtub while she was taking a shower.


HORSESHIT ,And it's not the same thing, If she were to pick up the wet hair drier, she'd be the only path in the shower. If she didn't pick it up, she wouldn't feel a thing. You're an idiot and a liar.


Mythbusters is full of shit CIA psyop

Go to hell, idiot


Where do you get your information?

HORSESHIT ,And it's not the same thing, If she were to pick up the wet hair drier, she'd be the only path in the shower. If she didn't pick it up, she wouldn't feel a thing. You're an idiot and a liar.


Mythbusters is full of shit CIA psyop

Go to hell, idiot


Where do you get your information?



Go fuck yourself.

Seriously.

She died you asshole. I knew her.

Mythbusters is CIA now?
Ask ANY electrician what would happen if an appliance fell into the bathwater.

Are you drunk already?

TAKE YOUR MEDS.

Bathtub electrocutions have been reported. Here are two.

[link to www.digitaltrends.com]

[link to www.dailymail.co.uk]

Found after less than one minute of googling.



So, because you dropped one kind of electric device into an aquarium and nothing happened, it is safe to drop any kind of electrical device (hairdryer, electric heater, bug zapper, etc.) into a bathtub and be safe?

How like you. People, do not try this at home.

Lighting fixtures can be watertight and waterproof. There are lighting fixtures in swimming pools.

These days, there is a device known as a GFI (Ground Fault Interrupter) that some appliances carry, and that is included these days in kitchen and bathroom plugs. This device shuts down the power in this case. So bathroom electrocutions occur much less often.

Look at Mythbusters ( [link to www.discovery.com] They do several experiments and concluded that, while not as spectacular in the movies, electrocution can happen this way.

Of course IDW will claim to spot some flaw, like "there was not a live person in the tub, so how can they be sure".

EXPERIMENT:

Try listening to an electrician instead of the sound of whatever that comes out of your ass.

You are far and away the most vile and ignorant person I have ever witnessed online.

Are you drunk?

[link to www.digitaltrends.com]

The story says, "she dropped her charging iPhone into the bath with her."

[link to www.dailymail.co.uk]

Where does this say "an incident that police have declared is undetermined as to cause", IDW?

I see

"Police said they were treating the deaths as 'unexplained' but a source said it appeared they were the result of a terrible accident."

meaning the police are not sure of exactly what sequence of events happened, not that it is uncertain that electrocution could occur that way.

Still messing up the quotes, oh genius?

Wrong - about 100 mA for tap water, if bath additives are added its much higher.

[link to www.wdr.de] Go to 01:10 in the video.


2 Electrocuted in Bathtub: [link to www.nytimes.com]
Two children dead after dropping hair dryer into bathtub: [link to www.thelocal.de]
Girl's bathtub death is blamed on hair dryer: [link to www.startribune.com]

And some other 41 cases: [link to www.medline.ru]

.


.

"Obviously ..."

"My guess is ..."

Just like your moon hoax junk. You make a guess based on your "experience" and "intuition," and "obviously" it has to be true.

I have - Did you?



May be it's the length of the cord? Or the weight of the "electrical appliances"?
The study was made 1995 to 1999. Even back then all electric toothbrushes and most shavers operated at 3 V to 6 V. But the imagination, someone carries a running crt tv to the bathroom is quite amusing.



In opposition to the USA almost all buildings in Germany are equipped with RCDs, so this is no surprise.



And how does this help you?
Hair dryers have an isolating plastic housing - or do you think, that all suicide victim disassambled their hair dryers to grab the life wire before they stepped into the bathtub?



Probably? Your assumption?
That would have left electrical burns - can you point to the sentence in the article that states, these five victims had electrical burns?



The human body is a resistor of 1000 Ohm and 1/4 Watt.

I = U / R
Germany: 230 / 1000 = 0.23 A = 230 mA
USA: 110 / 1000 = 0.11 A = 110 mA
A resistor of 1000 Ohm and 1/4 Watt, applied to 110V/230V and 0.11A/0.23A, will blow in how much seconds?

As shown in the video I linked to, there is a current of 120mA flowing between the hair dryer and ground at 230 V - with 110 V it should be around 55 mA.
Ventricular fibrillation and/or cardiac arrest will occur at a current of 30 mA.

In a grounded bathtub you open another electric circuit from the hair dryer through the water to the ground with a current of 120 mA (55 mA).
Since the human body is a parallel resistor to the water, about 100 mA are flowing through the body even without touching any other grounded object.


If you insist, that nobody can die from a hair dryer in a bathtub, I would like to see you to perform the experiment:
IDW in a tap water filled grounded bathtub with no RCD in place and somebody drops a running hair dryer into the water - live on Youtube.

Don't forget to have some paramedics at hand to pull the fuse and start resuscitation attempts - we would miss you :)

.

Wont the human body in the bath only be in parallel with the water if the body is in contact with the hair dryer?

i watched 'capricorn one' last night. the mars lunar lander looked very-much like the one that purportedly went to the moon.

i wanted to ask two questions:

1) why would someone make such a movie? I understand the US cold war foes making such a film, but not friends. was the film made in the US or UK? Why would they make such a film? if the British made it, it was perhaps to blackmail the US; or, if the US made it, it was to get out ahead of the doubters to make the claim that if they had faked it, there is no way they would make a film about faking a landing on another terrestrial body. This point reminds me of the claim about the alien figurine which looks identical to the leaked pictures of the purported real alien.

2) nasa faked the moon landings. capricon one is about a faked mars mission. did the USA have, for some reason, plans to fake a mars landing instead of a moon landing? why would they fake a mars landing- that is, what are the advantages- instead of the moon one, as they actually did? this question is asking if NASA, at any point, considered it more feasible to reach mars than the moon because the moon was perhaps better guarded somehow than mars. this might sound like a ridiculous question- given the closeness of the moon relative to the distance, from earth, of mars- but the saliance in the question derives from the prospect that the moon might be weaponised (think moon bases, booby-trapped) by another species, thus, any prospect of humanity reaching it is a great deal more difficult than reaching mars, which might not be weaponised. so, distance aside, is there something which makes landing on the moon more difficult than mars? i am thinking this because capricorn one faked mars landings, not moon ones. i suppose the import was: one faked moon landing down, now over to a faked mars landing LOL.

BTW, i recommend capricorn one. good film. i especially liked the reporter, who, against all odds, remains alive- not to mention the astronaut.

IDW, have you ever agreed or was aligned in thinking with anyone on GLP?