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.

 

Did NASA just admit they never put Man on The Moon? [Video]

page: 36
45
<< 33  34  35   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

And according to the Apollo 12 report, put together with real data not by watching videos, the engine stop button was activated almost 2 seconds prior to pad contact. They went from a 0.4 ft/sec descent rate to a max of 3.5 ft/sec rate.




posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 09:35 PM
link   
a reply to: FoosM

you arent very good at brainstorming hoaxes i see..

so if you were part of the "hoax panel" as a scientist knowing full well how dust should behave in vacuum, you would think its a good idea to take several close up high definition images of the footpads without visible dust on them.. and this would not be a problem for you at all??

even though right now you are suggesting that there should be layer of visible dust on every image of the footpads.. and you arent even a scientist nor engineer..
edit on 17-1-2015 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2015 @ 06:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

And according to the Apollo 12 report, put together with real data not by watching videos, the engine stop button was activated almost 2 seconds prior to pad contact. They went from a 0.4 ft/sec descent rate to a max of 3.5 ft/sec rate.


Obfuscation will not help you here, Zaphod58, only hard proof will. The official NASA video from the Apollo 12 moon landing corresponds with the mission transcripts which clearly states that the rocket engine was shut down after touchdown:

page 89 of the Apollo 12 LM Mission Transcript:


04 14 32 27 LMP 18 feet, coming down at 2. You've got it made.
Come on in there. 24 feet. (at about 4:31 in the video; moon landing in progress)

04 14 32 33 LMP CONTACT LIGHT.(at about 4:37 in the video; dust is whirling up from the rocket engine thrust)

04 14 32 34 LMP It's on.(at about 4:38 in the video; the ground is no longer visible because of the Lunar Module's own shadow as it is so close to the ground, dust is whirling)

04 14 32 36 CC Roger. (at about 4:40 in the video; Everthing is black, dust is whirling)

04 14 32 37 LMP PRO. (at about 4:41 in the video; Here they clearly are standing still and have landed)

04 14 32 38 CDR Yes_ PRO. (at 4:42 in the video; they are standing still but the dust is still whirling due to the rocket engine still being turned on)

04 14 32 40 LMP ENGINE ARM, OFF. Okay. (at 4:44 in the video; This means they turned off the rocket engine)


And the same "LMP ENGINE ARM, OFF. Okay." message from the mission transcript statement can be heard 8 seconds after touchdown in the offcial NASA video from the Apollo 12 moon landing:



All the evidence is there that the rocket engine was turned off about 8 seconds after touchdown, and thusly the engine would have delivered at least 1,000 lbs thrust at the time of the landing.

-MM

edit on 18-1-2015 by MerkabaMeditation because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2015 @ 08:49 AM
link   
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

So watching YouTube you can tell more than the official report from NASA, that used the actual telemetry. Got it.

You Aldo need to learn the correct terms. Engine arm off and engine off are not the same. Engine arm means the fuel and ignition system are off and the engine can't be activated until they're ready. Engine off is shutdown.

But make sure you tell NASA you know more than they do about the mission since you watched a YouTube video.



posted on Jan, 18 2015 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

You can see from the video you posted that the engine was off for a while before Alan Bean said "Okay. Engine arm, off " (which, as Zaphod pointed out, does NOT mean the same thing as "engine off").

Oddly enough, Pete Conrad wanted to leave the engine on until touchdown, but as he said in the below interview, he had done it correctly so many time in the hours and hours of training simulations (turning off the engine when the contact probe light comes on) that it was so ingrained in his mind to do so that he shut off the engines as a matter of rote.

Here are Apollo 12 transcript with annotations and comment from post-mission interviews and mission debriefs with the astronauts:



110:32:29 Bean: 18 feet, coming down at 2. He's got it made! Come on in there. 24 feet.

110:32:35 Bean: Contact Light.

110:32:36 Carr: Roger. Copy Contact.


[The Mission Report gives the time of contact as 110:32:36, which is 06:54:36 UTC on 19 November 1969.]

[Jones - "I gather from the tech debrief that you actually dropped the last two or three feet."]

[Conrad - "You're supposed to."]

[Jones - "And the theory on that was?"]

[Conrad - "Lunar contact light came on and the probes were six feet below the gear. We were supposed to shut the engine off right then because they did worry about the bell mouth too close to the ground."]

[Bean - "Or hitting a rock and denting the bell mouth."]

[Conrad - "And I said, always, 'I'll never do that; who wants to shut off a good engine when you're still in the air?' But we had to train to shut it off. Neil landed with his (engine still) on. And, so, I was going to do the same thing. And, whoever said 'lunar contact light', I went 'bamm' and shut it down. (Laugh) Somewhere in there, I think there's an 'Oh #'. Or there almost was. But about that time we were on (the Moon), and I didn't have to get it (the 'oh #') the rest of the way out. I remember that."]

[What Pete is saying is that he intended to keep the engine running until they were down, just as Neil had done. During training, he was a good boy and always shut the engine off immediately after the contact light came on. By the time they were actually landing, shutting the engine off promptly had become so ingrained that he had shut it down before he remembered that he'd wanted to leave it on.]...

...[Conrad, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "I had my head in the cockpit when the Lunar Contact light came on and I instinctively hit the Stop button and that's how we got shut off in the air. We were, I'd estimate, 2 or 3 feet in the air still when I shut down the engine and it dropped right on in]



110:32:39 Conrad: (Garbled; possibly 'Drop')

110:32:40 Bean: Pro(ceed)!

110:32:41 Conrad: Yeah, Pro.

110:32:43 Bean: Okay. Engine Arm, Off.



Source:
history.nasa.gov...


edit on 1/18/2015 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation


You do realize that the engine was shut down prior to landing on all apollo craft. ByIt was for safety reasons. They always shut down the main engines before landing at about 8 meters there committed and nothing can stop it. At that point engine becomes a threat kicking up rocks and dust.

If they didn't shut the main engine off the last 3 meters would be a disaster even throttled all the way down the one exception was Neal he aborted his original landing site to rocky and he moved the craft vertically to avoid it there was no drop.
edit on 1/19/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Only a "possible" disaster, caused by the engine bell being damaged by a boulder while thrusting, or the exhaust being blocked. It is a potential risk, but not an absolute disaster if they don't shut down the engine.

Case in point: Apollo 11 did not shut down its engine until they were on the surface. Neil Armstrong says he did not hear Buzz call out "contact light".



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 11:00 AM
link   
As others have stated, 'Engine Arm Off' is not the same as 'Engine Off' - it's the equivalent of taking the key out of the ignition - you are disarming the engine to stop it from firing.

Apollo 14 didn't announce this until nearly 45 seconds after landing.



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 05:19 PM
link   
As a matter of interest,why did they have to shut the engine down manually when it would be open to human error? Why not have it shut down automatically by the surface contact probes?



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Imagewerx

In case there was an issue with the probes.



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 05:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Ok thanks,makes sense I reckon!



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Imagewerx

In case there was an issue with the probes.


It may also be the case that the astronauts wanted more control over some systems. Throughout the early days of manned space flight, the astronauts (most of whom were pilots) fought to have more piloting control over the spacecraft, rather than allowing systems to be automated. I don't know if that was the case for this particular system (the descent engine shutdown), but maybe that had some part in making it a manual shutdown.

Although, if that was the case, it is a bit ironic that on the very first landing the astronauts failed to shut the engine down at the proper time. Armstrong claims that he never heard Buzz Aldrin call out "contact light", so the manual engine shutdown did not occur until they were on the surface.



posted on Mar, 14 2016 @ 08:59 AM
link   
No wonder Obama cancelled the return to the moon mission.
Since "..it ran into technical difficulties ..".

I guess with that logic we would have a hardtime building submarines today, that could perform as well as those during the second world war.

It's a friggin miracle that people still can manufacture shoes.



posted on Mar, 14 2016 @ 10:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: MJOne82
No wonder Obama cancelled the return to the moon mission.
Since "..it ran into technical difficulties ..".

I guess with that logic we would have a hardtime building submarines today, that could perform as well as those during the second world war.

It's a friggin miracle that people still can manufacture shoes.

Mission requirements between Apollo and the cancelled "Constellation Program" were quite different; "getting to the Moon and back" was not the only issue facing Consteallation. One of the technical issues faced by Constellation for returning to the Moon and using it as a stepping stone to Mars was mission duration.

The Constellation program called for much longer duration missions than the Apollo program. An Apollo-style "just go, walk around a bit, and come back" would not be enough for a new manned Moon program. Any new program for putting people on the Moon would most likely include habitats and bases for missions lasting several weeks or months....

...and the problem with that is cosmic radiation.

The Apollo program really didn't do much at all to shield against cosmic radiation. Apollo's best method to protect the astronauts was to keep the missions short enough that their cosmic radiation exposure times were kept at allowable limits. The next missions to the Moon under the defunct Constellation Program would have been longer, thus would have needed some sort of technology to allow for cosmic radiation shielding (and be able to do it at an acceptable cost).

So a 2-week (maximum) trip to the moon and back in the late 1960s/early 1970s didn't require vast amounts of radiation shielding (other than the secondary protection that things such as the insulation provided). NASA basically told the astronauts they were going to live with the increased health risks from that exposure time. However, a one-month or longer mission to the Moon today would subject the astronaut to a higher (and unacceptable) level of radiation, and thus would require real radiation shielding (technology specifically provided for that purpose).

edit on 3/14/2016 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 33  34  35   >>

log in

join