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.

 

Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

page: 50
57
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 06:21 AM
link   
Nobody in the Apollo-era knew that aluminum made radiation worse than before, within deep space.

Worse means no aluminum craft will ever fly humans into deep space. None. Ever. Period.

They obviously know the Apollo craft were built mainly of aluminum.

And they also know the Apollo craft were supposedly in deep space, too.


So when they said aluminum craft will not go into deep space with humans, while knowing full well Apollo was aluminum, and claimed to have gone into deep space, with humans....they made no exceptions for it.

They didn't say Apollo was an exception, which means it is not an exception.




posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 06:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

Here's one source which mentions it...


funny the one source you linked to talks about the heat shield for use on Orion..

Orion's heat shield was tested.. did it not work the way it was supposed to?? did it spectacularly fail on re-entry???


It mentions Apollo and Shuttle technologies as being 'heritage technology'..

This was required technology, and would guarantee they'd succeed, just like Apollo (supposedly) did it over 40 years earlier!!

It failed miserably, however.


guarantee it would succeed??? so using heritage technology would 100% guarantee success of anything?? like say if i took the wright brothers technology as well as some v-2 heritage rocket technology.. if i slap them together i will guarantee a fighter aircraft better than an F15?? is that your point??

and again you are saying it failed miserably.. Orion didnt fail and it tested the heat shield your so called "heritage technology"


Why?

They had all the required technology at hand, after 40 years later, it fails.


Orion didnt fail.. repeating it over and over wont make it true..

the technology of the heat shield exists.. what doesnt exists is the technology to MASS produce it to within very tight tolerances.


It had complications - fit/ form, lousy contractors, etc..

This is pure bs, of course..

Every contractor is approved beforehand, and replaced if needed (delays, etc)


how is it bull#?? if you contract someone to build your house and tell them you want a good foundation for it.
Two months later you asked if they have finished the foundation of your house yet and their reply is "oh we didnt make a foundation but started building your house anyway"

you are still going keep this contractor and hope for the best?? good luck with that.


Now, who develops technology for a manned moon landing, drops it, to develop a 'far more advanced' technology, which can't even send humans beyond LEO.


what was dropped?? you have yet to prove that everything was scrapped.. you have yet to prove anything was scrapped come to think of it.


A manned moon landing will not go backwards, it will only lead us to many more moon landings, longer stays, and moon bases...this is how exploration ACTUALLY works..


it would with enough funding.. without the funding exploration would be put on hold..

also, im guessing now there are going to be daily trips down to the mariana trench since james cameron completed his descent in 2012 right??
edit on 12-3-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 06:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
Nobody in the Apollo-era knew that aluminum made radiation worse than before, within deep space.

Worse means no aluminum craft will ever fly humans into deep space. None. Ever. Period.


worse doesnt mean impossible..

oh and heres a quote from one of your articles


The analysis provides
enabling technology for protecting astronauts and missions
for long duration and deep space missions. Current
technology is adequate for a single lunar mission for casual
astronauts
. Revolutionary technology needs to be developed
for human space missions to Mars for NASA’s vision.

www.minimagnetosphere.rl.ac.uk...

edit on 12-3-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 07:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

So the extensive timeline of LM development freely available with a simple google search never happened right?

The people who worked on, and built, the LM, and did all the testing of on the ground (recorded in these in house journals) never happened?

www.jsc.nasa.gov...

So the footage of the LM in Earth orbit from Apollo 9, that didn't happen right?

The footage of the LM broadcast on live TV being extracted after TLI didn't happen right?

The LM impact ascent module impact sites on the moon aren't there right?

Any proof you can provide that would prove the LM was not capable of landing on the moon would be just peachy.


It was built on Earth.

The components were built to spec, and tested.

They assumed this component was built and tested as part of the LM, because they were told it was for the LM.

Maybe it was, or maybe it was not - they did not know, anyway

Let's say it was for the LM, now..

They built a component for the LM, and it worked within all the specs.

At that point, the component is shipped out, as finished assembly, and that's it.

So how would they ever know if the LM works or not, or if it only works in space?

They don't know,


The LM was never tested as a finished product - that's the whole problem. A component will work, this is not proof the LM works.



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 07:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1
Nobody in the Apollo-era knew that aluminum made radiation worse than before, within deep space.

Worse means no aluminum craft will ever fly humans into deep space. None. Ever. Period.


worse doesnt mean impossible..

oh and heres a quote from one of your articles


The analysis provides
enabling technology for protecting astronauts and missions
for long duration and deep space missions. Current
technology is adequate for a single lunar mission for casual
astronauts
. Revolutionary technology needs to be developed
for human space missions to Mars for NASA’s vision.

www.minimagnetosphere.rl.ac.uk...


Current technology is adequate for a single lunar mission.

What is current technology?

Current technology is NOT old, Apollo-era technology, right?

Current technology is adequate. Apollo technology is not adequate, therefore.


Thanks for supporting my point.



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 07:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

The LM was never tested as a finished product - that's the whole problem. A component will work, this is not proof the LM works.


Yes it was.

Apollo 5

Apollo 9.

Apollo 10.

You are in utter denial of reality - do you think they assembled it with their eyes shut?

I am still waiting for your evidence that it was not capable of doing the job it was designed for, or your evidence supporting your claims about radiation.




posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

Current technology is adequate for a single lunar mission.

What is current technology?

Current technology is NOT old, Apollo-era technology, right?

Current technology is adequate. Apollo technology is not adequate, therefore.

Thanks for supporting my point.


ohh it supports your point you think???
so please explain exactly what is so different between Apollo shielding and todays shielding technology?? please explain??

also if current technology is sufficient for a single lunar mission why did they, according to you, cancel constellation??



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1




So when they said aluminum craft will not go into deep space with humans, while knowing full well Apollo was aluminum, and claimed to have gone into deep space, with humans....they made no exceptions for it.


It didn't exactly go into deep space since the moon is less than 300,000 miles away...a drop in the bucket in terms of distance needed to travel to anywhere other than the moon in space.



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 11:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

Current technology is adequate for a single lunar mission.

What is current technology?

Current technology is NOT old, Apollo-era technology, right?

Current technology is adequate. Apollo technology is not adequate, therefore.

Thanks for supporting my point.




originally posted by: choos
ohh it supports your point you think???


I know it does.


originally posted by: choos
so please explain exactly what is so different between Apollo shielding and todays shielding technology?? please explain??


You want me to explain your own source, in other words?

The main problem is that you've tried to cherry-pick a comment out of the document, because you thought it would support your argument. I simply pointed out that because it refers to "current technology", we can rule out old, Apollo technology.

What is so different about shielding technology today, compared to the Apollo-era?

Take a look through these same documents, which discuss the issue. Shielding technology is ever-changing, and will keep changing, and evolving, for years to come.

I don't know how many times I have to tell you about the problems with aluminum shielding in deep space. I've cited the documents repeatedly, and quoted the documents over and over. This alone is one of the differences in shielding between the Apollo-era and today.



originally posted by: choos
also if current technology is sufficient for a single lunar mission why did they, according to you, cancel constellation??


Let's look at the specific quote you cited...

"The analysis provides enabling technology for protecting astronauts and missions for long duration and deep space missions. Current technology is adequate for a single lunar mission for casual astronauts. Revolutionary technology needs to be developed for human space missions to Mars for NASA’s vision."

www.minimagnetosphere.rl.ac.uk...

This quote is at the very end of the document. The rest of the document needs to be looked at, so we know what they mean by "enabling technology", "current technology", and "revolutionary technology".

In fact, the document never explains what "current technology" means, or what "adequate" means in relation to it.
The paper doesn't discuss it at all.



We have gone back and forth over the issue of short-term and long-term missions, in deep space.

I've found a quote in the same document, in fact, from the abstract on page one, which confirms what I've told you...

"Exposure from the hazards of severe space radiation in deep space and/or long duration missions is a critical design constraint and a potential ‘show stopper.’ Thus, protection from the hazards of severe space radiation is of paramount importance to the agency’s vision."


..deep space missions, and/or long duration missions..

Which means ANY and ALL deep space missions, short or long duration. As well as ANY and ALL long duration missions, whether in deep space, or not.

Do you understand this, finally?



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 11:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: turbonium1




So when they said aluminum craft will not go into deep space with humans, while knowing full well Apollo was aluminum, and claimed to have gone into deep space, with humans....they made no exceptions for it.


It didn't exactly go into deep space since the moon is less than 300,000 miles away...a drop in the bucket in terms of distance needed to travel to anywhere other than the moon in space.



The term 'deep space' refers to anywhere beyond Earth orbit, so the Moon is considered to be in 'deep space'. A 'deep space' mission is any mission going beyond Earth orbit - so a lunar mission, or a Mars mission, would both be deep space missions.

I know, 'deep space' implies an area of space far beyond the Moon, perhaps to Mars, or beyond the solar system, or even beyond the galaxy. But it is from the point beyond Earth orbit, and outward.



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 11:36 PM
link   
double post
edit on 12-3-2016 by turbonium1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 11:45 PM
link   
Prove that moon missions are deep space. You should be able to cite a source for that.
edit on 3/12/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 12:16 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

No, Deep Space isn't anything beyond Earths orbit, it's interstellar space beyond the reach of any given stars gravity well. And Lagrange points within a system don't count.



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 12:25 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar


How come they took Hasselblad movie cameras with no shielding using ordinary film. This has got to be a dead giveaway that something is amiss , The temperatures and cosmic radiation would have stuffed up the film.



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 12:32 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

No, that is the definition of deep space that you have cherry picked because it suits your cause. It is not what is meant by deep space in any of the reports to which you refer.



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 12:35 AM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

Why would they?

What makes you think that the silver-bodied cameras with as many parts likely to be affected by temperature wouldn't have coped?

What evidence to do you have that the film would have been ruined?

There were several probes sent to the moon before Apollo whose cameras and films were also exposed to the same kind of problems and they had no such issues.



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 12:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
Prove that moon missions are deep space. You should be able to cite a source for that.


NASA Announces Design for New Deep Space Exploration System
September 14, 2011
NASA is ready to move forward with the development of the Space Launch System - an advanced heavy-lift launch vehicle that will provide an entirely new national capability for human exploration beyond Earth's orbit.


www.nasa.gov...

Stennis is now preparing three stands to test next-generation rocket engines that will carry humans beyond low-Earth orbit into deep space.

history.nasa.gov...

Apollo 15 televised the first lunar liftoff and recorded a walk in deep space by Alfred Worden.

spaceflight.nasa.gov...


Is that enough proof for you?



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 12:51 AM
link   
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo


Well what about the moon itself, it has a 1/4 of the mass of the Earth, which means that the fuel expenditure to get into lunar orbit from the moon would be 1/4 of what was required to get into Earth orbit. So how come the little lunar lander got down and back up again, the mass of the vehicle makes no sense, No way would it hold even a 1/4 of the fuel required, to get the Earth rocket off . They were supposed to have gone down and got off again.



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 01:45 AM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

You make it sound as if they used stock right off the shelf and didn't bother making necessary modifications to the cameras and film cartridges. They had been using Hasselblad's since the end of Mercury and continued to do so throughout the Space Shuttle program and still do on the ISS.



posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 03:09 AM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

You've obviously got figures that demonstrate that right? Are you expecting the lunar module to 1/4 the size of a Saturn V?

Oh, and the Moon is 1/4 the diameter of the Earth. The Moon's mass is 1/81 that of the Earth.

What matters is not the physical size but the gravitational force the lander needed to overcome. The mass and fuel budgets of the lander are well recorded on the web and in books, so anytime you want to prove that it couldn't do the job it was designed for I'm all ears.



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join