It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NVIDIA Simulation Debunks Apollo 11 Moon Landing Hoax

page: 4
35
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 04:57 PM
link   
We do not have a reason to go back to the moon ATM with our current technology and no going back to prove we had already gone is not a reason because anyone who actually looks at the evidence knows we went. Now we probably will go back once certain technologies are developed that will enable us to build a moon base.

Developments being pursued to 3d print homes are also being looked at to build a moon base.


If a base can be built then space exploration will become much easier and cost effective even things such as asteroid excavation could become possible.




posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: DAZ21


I mean there's no reason why we can't use old technology and knowledge, it got us there once right?

Thats why they did it that way. Imagine the cost of that today? Remember, they didn't just go there in one shot. Each of the subsystems had to be tested and bugs worked out before proceeding to the next phase.

It won't be just "New Apollo 1" goes all the way there and back. The cost of materials, fuel and labor would pretty much make that way more expensive. Besides, the infrastructure needed like Mission Control, tracking, launch pads, gantries, recovery, etc.

Think about it.

I agree though, the tech today is so much better… unmanned, one way.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
One thing I noticed is that their simulation is very bright.

Perhaps the original film dimmed the scene?

Or did they just ramp the lighting up to show off the graphics?


When they took the original pictures, they would have adjusted the film/radio signal for maximum contrast.
There is an incredible difference between the blackness of space and the surface reflecting light from the Sun. Every square meter of Moon rock was generating the equivalent of a dozen 100 watt light bulbs. There's no atmosphere to scatter sunlight so it would be a harsh contrast. That would have meant the simulation would have to be bright too.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: DAZ21
a reply to: intrptr

Not really, if we could use the state of the art of yesteryear today, it will be relatively cheap. I mean there's no reason why we can't use old technology and knowledge, it got us there once right?

The Saturn V remains the most powerful rocket ever successfully flown. That wasn't cheap to do, and it won't be cheap in the future. To the extent that they can minimize costs with 3d printing and other cutting edge techniques they will, but doing things the way they did them back then was extremely expensive and that doesn't change just because we've known how to do it for a long time. The mighty F1 engines required a LOT of hand welding, a ridiculous number of man hours of work, and each was only used for a single flight. There wasn't time to figure out how to do things in the most optimal way possible, it was done without any consideration given to cost. That's not the case today, but even with the refinements that will be made SLS is still an extraordinarily expensive project. 10 billion dollars just through 2017, and that's optimistic. That gets you one unmanned test flight (the equivalent of Apollo 6), but right now they're saying they're not even going to be able to make that date. Ultimately when it is up and running, the goal is to launch the SLS for 500 million per launch, or a little less than half the cost of a Saturn V launch in today's dollars. That's probably ridiculously optimistic too. If this were the space shuttle program where the initial per-flight cost estimate was about 27.8 times too low, that would mean the SLS's true cost per flight will be somewhere around 13.8 billion dollars. Ironically enough, one estimate of the launch cost pegs it at around 14.3 billion dollars per launch.
www.thespacereview.com...
The problem is the low flight rate. The cost of maintaining the massive work force needed to launch the rocket, the facilities needed to launch the rocket, and the development of the rocket itself are all spread out over relatively few launches. Even at a flight rate of one per year (which is essentially the NASA stated goal) you're realistically looking at about 5 billion per launch. That's not cheap by any means. Smaller rockets like the Falcon 9 and Falcon 9 Heavy are drastically cheaper both per pound of payload and in real costs.
edit on 19-9-2014 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: eightfold

Hang on a minute, just hold your horses.

People say the moon landing is a HOAX ... and now, a gaming company is creating a virtual reality to do what, exactly?

Are they going to use the HOAX, to prove to the world, that the HOAX wasn't a HOAX?

Are people here for real, or what????



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: bjarneorn
a reply to: eightfold
People say the moon landing is a HOAX ... and now, a gaming company is creating a virtual reality to do what, exactly?

Are they going to use the HOAX, to prove to the world, that the HOAX wasn't a HOAX?

Are people here for real, or what????

The point was to demonstrate that reflected indirect light from the surface of the moon and the astronaut taking the picture was responsible for the fact that Aldrin wasn't in pitch black darkness as he emerged from the LEM. It's a gaming company making a simulation that runs on their GPU to demonstrate their computing power and the power of computing the lighting using voxels. It's not a "hoax."



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: eightfold

I do not know if they were real or not but sorry, I do not see why this idea to simulate one light source is proof the moonlandings were real. And if so, my trust in the US government is shattered. It will take gestures of good unquestionable stuff, good people and years before this trust will be restored. Such an attempt to put a conspiracy to bed doesn't cut it... too many technical and specialists variables which can be manipulated to take the common crowd for a ride. (no punn intended)


edit on 19/9/2014 by zatara because: of to, two or too



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: DAZ21
That's quite interesting.

But why don't we have modern astronauts with modern cameras on the moon showing us in high definition today? At the very least can they send up a remote control vehicle with some HD camera attached that we can get some real visuals of the moon surface rather than telescope imagery??

And if this exists already can someone post it, because I can't find anything anywhere...
I thought China or Japan put some kind of rover up there recently?



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: DAZ21


I mean there's no reason why we can't use old technology and knowledge, it got us there once right?

Thats why they did it that way. Imagine the cost of that today? Remember, they didn't just go there in one shot. Each of the subsystems had to be tested and bugs worked out before proceeding to the next phase.

It won't be just "New Apollo 1" goes all the way there and back. The cost of materials, fuel and labor would pretty much make that way more expensive. Besides, the infrastructure needed like Mission Control, tracking, launch pads, gantries, recovery, etc.

Think about it.

I agree though, the tech today is so much better… unmanned, one way.



Part of the problem is that NASA was deliberately designed to be as decentralized as possible so that as many parts of the country as possible would have a part to play in the Apollo program and therefore be receiving federal funding to complete the missions. It was probably the only reason the program politically survived long enough to complete the missions it completed. Unfortunately it also balloons the cost to do things that way.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: zatara
a reply to: eightfold
to many technical and specialists variables which can be manipulated to take the common crowd for a ride.

This is why I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that it isn't worth it to debate the matter with hoax believers. You automatically believe that any evidence which confirms the reality of Apollo is itself a hoax, no matter what. The only result of debating it is that "regular people" become part of the conspiracy and the distrust grows to include independent sources.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: proob4

originally posted by: DAZ21
That's quite interesting.

But why don't we have modern astronauts with modern cameras on the moon showing us in high definition today? At the very least can they send up a remote control vehicle with some HD camera attached that we can get some real visuals of the moon surface rather than telescope imagery??

And if this exists already can someone post it, because I can't find anything anywhere...
I thought China or Japan put some kind of rover up there recently?

China did put a rover up there, but nowhere near the landing sites.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: DAZ21
a reply to: intrptr

Not really, if we could use the state of the art of yesteryear today, it will be relatively cheap. I mean there's no reason why we can't use old technology and knowledge, it got us there once right?

Do they still have yesteryears SOTA? More than than that, who'd want to use it?
edit on 19-9-2014 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 05:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: ngchunter

originally posted by: ugmold
a reply to: eightfold

So who set up the camera?


To take a picture of Aldrin emerging from the LEM? That would be Armstrong. You know, the first guy on the moon's surface?


No, of Armstrong with his "One small step for man....



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: DAZ21

If we could get the original medium format negatives from the hasselblad cameras used, and re-scan them, we would have near as good as a modern HD digital camera could produce.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: ugmold

originally posted by: ngchunter

originally posted by: ugmold
a reply to: eightfold

So who set up the camera?


To take a picture of Aldrin emerging from the LEM? That would be Armstrong. You know, the first guy on the moon's surface?


No, of Armstrong with his "One small step for man....

Well that would be Armstrong when he pulled the lanyard to deploy the MESA which had the Westinghouse camera already inside of it ready to activate.
www.hq.nasa.gov...



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shaded27
a reply to: DAZ21

If we could get the original medium format negatives from the hasselblad cameras used, and re-scan them, we would have near as good as a modern HD digital camera could produce.


www.hq.nasa.gov...



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Shaded27

Also available at The Project Apollo Archive.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: ngchunter

Thanks for the link.
A quick look and I notice the files are about 2.0 Mb.
I can shoot a 120 neg on my old Bronica medium format camera and convert the neg into a full res digital file (at work) and end up with a file that's about 120.0Mb and is still way better than a modern high-end digital slr, just a lot more time consuming.

I find it still enjoyable to shoot on film, hand process the negs and then convert to digital.

I would love to play with some of the original negatives from Apollo. Not for conspiracy reasons, I'm just in awe



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 06:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: ngchunter

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Or jump really high and fall back really slow. And they never did.

False. A priori assumption which does not take into account ANY of the actual complications including:
The fact that they could barely bend their legs inside their space suits and had to jump flat footed.
The fact that their very lives depended on the life support system that they were wearing on their backs which was also very massive and offset their center of gravity such that they would fall on their backs if they jumped too hard

And yes, Charlie Duke did just that and was very lucky he didn't damage his PLSS. He realized immediately after he had done it how stupid that was.
www.youtube.com...


Suit and astronaut inside of suit together weighed 60 pounds.

Any astronaut could have grabbed onto a strut of the LM and lifted himself into a handstand with his wrists, and nothing but his wrists.

Jumping out of the LM door to a landing the surface of the moon would have less impact than jumping up and down on Earth.

They weighed 60 lbs, if they were on the moon, and they never did anything that looked like they weighed 60 lbs.




edit on 19-9-2014 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: ngchunter

originally posted by: ugmold

originally posted by: ngchunter

originally posted by: ugmold
a reply to: eightfold

So who set up the camera?


To take a picture of Aldrin emerging from the LEM? That would be Armstrong. You know, the first guy on the moon's surface?


No, of Armstrong with his "One small step for man....

Well that would be Armstrong when he pulled the lanyard to deploy the MESA which had the Westinghouse camera already inside of it ready to activate.
www.hq.nasa.gov...

That's what happened alright, it's pretty well documented.



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join