AstroRick Posted August 15, 2014 Share Posted August 15, 2014 Recently a conversation with a conspiracy-minded friend of mine brought some questions about KSP orbital mechanics to mind. To those lending credence to the Moon Landing Conspiracies have stated that certain pictures of the "full earth" taken from the moon would be impossible to take.My immediate thoughts were to plan a mission to the Mun in KSP to see if the photos could be replicated.Are the orbital mechanics in KSP close enough to those of the earth-moon system for a mission like this to provide representative answers or examples?Don't throw things. I -know- we landed on the moon. >.> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geschosskopf Posted August 15, 2014 Share Posted August 15, 2014 Yes (10 char) although this really has nothing to do with orbital mechanics (more char) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NFUN Posted August 15, 2014 Share Posted August 15, 2014 What do you mean by "full-Earth"? Would you mind posting the picture in question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pecan Posted August 15, 2014 Share Posted August 15, 2014 You can't convince conspiracy theorists with evidence. They only see it as evidence that you are part of the conspiracy ^^. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenfire32 Posted August 15, 2014 Share Posted August 15, 2014 If you can see the full face of the moon from the surface of Earth, would it not stand to reason that you can see the full face of the Earth from the surface of the moon?And yes, KSP's orbital mechanics are more than good enough to get accurate evidence. Though I don't know what good it will do you. Conspiro's only see evidence that supports their ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KerikBalm Posted August 15, 2014 Share Posted August 15, 2014 Basically, when the moon is between the sun and earth, the earth appears "full" and the moon is "dark"/"empty"/ "new"When the earth is between the sun and moon, the moon appears full and the earth is "dark"/"empty"/"new"The phases are basically opposites of each other.This is easy to replicate in KSP.Or you could look at the date of the 1st moonlanding: July 20, 1969http://www.calendar-12.com/moon_calendar/1969/julyBased on the phase of the moon viewed from earth, the earth must have been pretty full viewed from the moon.Also note that the "earthrise" pictures were taken from lunar orbit, not the surface. As the moon is tdially locked, the earth is stationary in the lunar sky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franklin Posted August 15, 2014 Share Posted August 15, 2014 What do you mean by "full-Earth"? Would you mind posting the picture in question?I can't even find something related to this in the moon landing conspiracy wiki page, but some of them are funny as hell.plus i don't think KSP's planetary phasing is good enough to try and replicate a real-life photograph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstroRick Posted August 15, 2014 Author Share Posted August 15, 2014 I found this video (nice aside from the now-somewhat-cheesy music). A more interesting video is this HD video from a recent Japanese moon probe: The mission (which I have decided to do) is more for my own knowledge than for convincing anyone else. That orbit looks pretty low... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstroRick Posted August 15, 2014 Author Share Posted August 15, 2014 Which begs the question what kind of Munar orbit do I need to replicate the Apollo lunar orbit? Searching the interwebs now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franklin Posted August 15, 2014 Share Posted August 15, 2014 Which begs the question what kind of Munar orbit do I need to replicate the Apollo lunar orbit? Searching the interwebs nowhttp://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/as11psr.pdfpage 16. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstroRick Posted August 15, 2014 Author Share Posted August 15, 2014 Thank you!http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/as11psr.pdfpage 16. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cat Biscuits Posted August 15, 2014 Share Posted August 15, 2014 Heya while we are discussing Space Program emulation on KSP I though you might like this series.Starting with the V2 Rocket this guy works to emulate significant historical space launches and events in chronological order on Kerbal Space Program.http://imgur.com/gallery/HlJyl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 If you launch toward the full Mun in KSP you have an chance of Kerbin blocking the sun leaving you out of power. If you are real unlucky this last all the way from where you wanted to lift Pe out of impact trajectory to you reach Mun. But yes the only solar panels on top of craft and launch toward full Mun is far easier to get, the poor rover failed the crash test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cantab Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 Wouldn't Orbiter be better for this kind of stuff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lajoswinkler Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 You won't be able to convince him anything. He's obviously a nutter. Nutters' brains work differently. They have a predefined set of beliefs and then selectively use input data to create a database which complies with the beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christok Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 You won't be able to convince him anything. He's obviously a nutter. Nutters' brains work differently. They have a predefined set of beliefs and then selectively use input data to create a database which complies with the beliefs.All of our brains work like that and failing to recognise it can lead you down the same path.The brain builds a complex framework for understanding the universe through everything you experience in your life. When one little fact seems to contradict a large framework covering a broad range of phenomena, it makes more sense (in general) to try and find a way to reinterpret the fact in terms of the framework than to rebuild the framework in terms of the fact. This is exactly the same thing we do when we see a claim about superluminal neutrinos: we assume there must probably be a mistake because it would invalidate to many things we think we know.You and I have had broader and better exposure to the topics at hand and have, as a result, built ourselves relatively decent frameworks for understanding the science and engineering behind spaceflight. Your typical "nutter" isn't so much insane as chronically ill-informed over a period of many years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralathon Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 Yea, you could use KSP to show him his argument is ......... But don't expect it to actually sway his views. I am convinced you could strap those conspiracy nuts into a saturn V and land them in tranquility base and they'd still deny its possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lajoswinkler Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 All of our brains work like that and failing to recognise it can lead you down the same path.The brain builds a complex framework for understanding the universe through everything you experience in your life. When one little fact seems to contradict a large framework covering a broad range of phenomena, it makes more sense (in general) to try and find a way to reinterpret the fact in terms of the framework than to rebuild the framework in terms of the fact. This is exactly the same thing we do when we see a claim about superluminal neutrinos: we assume there must probably be a mistake because it would invalidate to many things we think we know.You and I have had broader and better exposure to the topics at hand and have, as a result, built ourselves relatively decent frameworks for understanding the science and engineering behind spaceflight. Your typical "nutter" isn't so much insane as chronically ill-informed over a period of many years.No, our brains do not work just like that. I am talking about the highest order of functions, consciousness within neocortical matter which deals with awareness, logic, and combines it with knowledge, not inputs per se. Yes, brains will be selective about most inputs, otherwise it would be a cacophony and complete chaos, rendering us disabled.True, they mostly aren't clinically insane, but you'd be surprised how many of them have undiagnosed mild paranoia, serious OCD, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motokid600 Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 (edited) Yea, you could use KSP to show him his argument is ......... But don't expect it to actually sway his views. I am convinced you could strap those conspiracy nuts into a saturn V and land them in tranquility base and they'd still deny its possible.Let's design a lander to take all the conspirators to the landing sites. Then when they get there. "Nope it's Photoshop I'm telling ya. I'm right your, your wrong, Kevin Bacon wasn't in Footloose." Edited August 16, 2014 by Motokid600 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Iron Crown Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 You're going to have a hard time reasoning someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.Good luck though, and kudos for trying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christok Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 consciousness within neocortical matter which deals with awareness, logic, and combines it with knowledge, not inputs per se[citation needed]True, they mostly aren't clinically insane, but you'd be surprised how many of them have undiagnosed mild paranoia, serious OCD, etc.These do probably contribute to the problem but having several mild neuroses is normal. Unless you happen to be a psychopath, you almost certainly have them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lajoswinkler Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 [citation needed]You need a citation for a claim that normal everyday claims are dismissed by some people because they are stupid? Where the hell am I going to find that citation?Really, you're abusing the "citation needed" thingy.These do probably contribute to the problem but having several mild neuroses is normal. Unless you happen to be a psychopath, you almost certainly have them.I wasn't talking about mild neuroses. Those things are temporary. When someone pisses you off, you're basically mentally disturbed.I've mentioned more serious disturbances. Have you ever talked to a conspiracy nutter? It's like a biblethumper. They are conditioned to have an irrational response, and they often have underlying, chronic mental disturbance which is visible not only by the lack of reasoning, but by examining their physical behaviour and learning about their history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christok Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 ...Don't tell me someone has a malfunctioning neocortex and then claim that just means "stupid". Don't tell me mild neurosis means temporary anger. I'm not going to bother with this sort of argument anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZedNova Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 Thread closing in 3...2... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sal_vager Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 Can we please have Science labs threads that are about science? It's not too much to ask is it?Also, conspiracy theories are banned, because they cause so much trouble, alsoX2, arguing causes trouble, so yeah, closing thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts