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: 56
57
<< 53  54  55    57  58  59 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 02:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: greenreflections
Guys, just think about it, why to abandon working interplanetary venture when enormous input was a success and points out to aim for a new goal after so many successful missions?

There is permanent Moon base that can not be ignored as logical continuation of trouble-free landings, for instance. Makes no sense. Its like to invent a computer concept and put it on the shelf because 'been there, done that', 'no longer a challenge, hence we shift to sending probes to Mars because there is nothing else to do on that damned Moon anyway'. Sort of like why to give up unparalleled to Earthlings achievement without to at least to make an attempt to build a fundament on the Moon for future generations. Say, lets continue tossing darts into the sky using millennia old formulas only this time higher and with better photographic gear)

cheers)


I agree with you...

I've heard all their nonsense excuses, too..

The number one excuse - a lack of money!

In reality, NASA received all the money requested, spent it all, got more money, and spent it all once again, then asked for more money, but didn't get it.

NASA admitted they didn't know how much money is needed to reach their goal, which is a manned lunar mission.


Now, a lack of money is after getting all the money you asked for, and getting more money later on, and not knowing how much more money is 'enough' - but they 'lack' it.

The government refuses to give them 'enough' money, obviously!!

This assumes that money solves the problem.

They don't know what is 'enough' money, because nobody has ever landed on the moon!






edit on 9-4-2016 by turbonium1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 02:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
then asked for more money, but didn't get it.


Nail on the head.



NASA admitted they didn't know how much money is needed to reach their goal, which is a manned lunar mission.


Either provide a source for that statement or admit you made it up.



Now, a lack of money is after getting all the money you asked for, and getting more money later on, and not knowing how much more money is 'enough' - but they 'lack' it.

The government refuses to give them 'enough' money, obviously!!

This assumes that money solves the problem.


the JFK and LBJ administrations gave them the money. Nixon took it away and demanded they spend it on something else instead.

Which part of that is difficult?



They don't know what is 'enough' money, because nobody has ever landed on the moon!



They do, because they have, but no-one will give them it any more.

Hey we can add another question to the ones you refuse to answer! As well as:

What evidence do you have that the Apollo hardware was not capable of doing the job for which it was designed?

and

What evidence do you have that Apollo astronauts would have, and did, receive a lethal dose of radiation?

we can add:

How much do you think it costs to send a man to the moon? Which hospitals and schools should close to pay for it?
edit on 9/4/2016 by OneBigMonkeyToo because: parsing is such sweet sorrow



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 03:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

you know what lets just simplify it.

Is usage of aluminum in the hull of a spacecraft deadly regardless of how long they spend in deep space?

if it isnt it means Apollo was definitely possible.. all i need you to say is that usage of aluminum on the apollo spacecraft hull made the mission impossible to survive.



The fact is aluminum shielding will not protect humans within deep space.

They make no exceptions to that fact. None.

You cannot ramble on about how short missions are an exception to these statements, since they make no exceptions in their actual reports.

They obviously know that Apollo (supposedly) sent humans to the moon, in deep space, with (mainly) aluminum spacecraft....

The Apollo missions are ignored by these experts. How could the only genuine data be ignored? Since it's actually not genuine data, and that is the reason why they have completely ignored it.



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 03:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

The number one excuse - a lack of money!

In reality, NASA received all the money requested, spent it all, got more money, and spent it all once again, then asked for more money, but didn't get it.



basically this is the story you have weaved so far.

it was really a lack of shielding technology that they never had of which they did have in 2007 by looking at the report you like to quote from but they didnt have this technology in 2009 when they cancelled constellation because "lack of money excuses", as you say, to develope this technology which existed in 2007 but still needed to develope this technology using moneys by 2009 of which they failed to do even though it existed in 2007, as shown from your own report, and disappeared in 2009, due to "lack of money excuse" from developing new technology that doesnt exist yet but does exist.

nice web of lies and contradictions you have built.

and to add to OBMonkeys questions that you wont answer:
Is usage of aluminum in the hull of a spacecraft deadly regardless of how long they spend in deep space?

what is the background GCR's levels in deep space?

what is this new current shielding technology they had in 2007?

edit on 9-4-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 03:43 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1


The fact is aluminum shielding will not protect humans within deep space.


so you think it is 100% deadly, exposed to GCR's, when using aluminum hull, regardless of exposure time?



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 03:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

Either provide a source for that statement or admit you made it up.


They do, because they have, but no-one will give them it any more.

Hey we can add another question to the ones you refuse to answer! As well as:

What evidence do you have that the Apollo hardware was not capable of doing the job for which it was designed?

and

What evidence do you have that Apollo astronauts would have, and did, receive a lethal dose of radiation?

we can add:

How much do you think it costs to send a man to the moon? Which hospitals and schools should close to pay for it?


The admission of not knowing what it will cost is not made up, it is in a document, I think the GAO report, but I'll check it out to prove you are wrong.

Do you claim to know a figure they cited? If so, where is your source on this? Let's see it...


Your other questions have previously been addressed, btw.



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 03:59 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

The final bill for Apollo was $25.4bn, $1.5bn over the January 1969 estimate, all costed and itemised. Initial estimates when Kennedy set his goal were $20bn. Far from constantly having to beg for more money, they had a very good idea of how much they needed and where the money needed to be spent.

In 2005 this report suggested $100bn

www.space.com...

Allowing or efficiency improvements will probably offset inflationary costs, and I've seen that figure quoted elsewhere as the equivalent of 1969 money. That $100bn is a NASA figure, which says to me they know how much money they need. That's very different from "NASA have no idea".

Still waiting for answers to my other questions.



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 04:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: turbonium1


The fact is aluminum shielding will not protect humans within deep space.


so you think it is 100% deadly, exposed to GCR's, when using aluminum hull, regardless of exposure time?


That's not my claim, as I've already explained to you, at length.

Aluminum is a poor shield in deep space, as we know..

They don't say aluminum craft would be 100% deadly, and neither do I say it.

They say it's not known, as yet, what the effects entirely are, on humans. But they DO know it is worse than no shielding at all, so it's hardly good to start with.


So they know it is worse than no shielding, in deep space, but they don't know how much worse, as yet. They know it's not going to be used in manned missions in deep space, because they know it's worse than no shielding at all!!

Now, despite what we know, why wouldn't they make an exception for short missions, like Apollo?

Ask yourself why they don't make any exceptions....



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 04:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

That's not my claim, as I've already explained to you, at length.


So you're not claiming that astronauts would die from radiation? You have indeed gone on at length, but you haven't explained anything.



Aluminum is a poor shield in deep space, as we know..


No. We don't know. It is not as good as some shield material, it is better than others. What it is is light. You also need to remember, because you never seem to, that aluminium was not the only construction material Apollo.



They don't say aluminum craft would be 100% deadly, and neither do I say it.


Then finally we agree: Apollo astronauts would not have suffered a lethal radiation dose in a craft with an aluminium skin over the rest of its construction.



They say it's not known, as yet, what the effects entirely are, on humans. But they DO know it is worse than no shielding at all, so it's hardly good to start with.


""They say" do they? OK we'll go with that, in which case how can you argue that Apollo astronauts would have been at risk? Where have you got the idea that aluminium shielding is worse than no shielding? Speciically, what words were used?



So they know it is worse than no shielding, in deep space, but they don't know how much worse, as yet. They know it's not going to be used in manned missions in deep space, because they know it's worse than no shielding at all!!

Now, despite what we know, why wouldn't they make an exception for short missions, like Apollo?

Ask yourself why they don't make any exceptions....


Where do they say that? Where are they talking about planning short term missions like Apollo? And again, if you are relying on sources which you claim don't know precise levels of risk from radiation, how are you able to be so definitive with your assessment that Apollo was inadequately protected from it?

Can't have it both ways.



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 05:18 AM
link   
These reports are discussing how to shield humans in deep space.

They mention aluminum, which has always been used before, will not work in deep space missions, because it is worse for humans than no shield at all. So future craft will not use aluminum shielding.

So how could Apollo use aluminum in deep space, you say?

The report is on 'long-term' missions of the future, and that allows them to totally ignore the Apollo problem - as it had only short-term missions.


Aluminum is a poor shield in deep space. Apollo was aluminum, but if nobody mentions that problem, they can all move right along...

To bring up Apollo is the last thing they'd ever do, and they know it.


At the same time, they can speak the truth about aluminum.


The reports are on GCR in deep space, and what can protect humans against it.

Apollo's data is measuring GCR in deep space, with humans, the only missions humans have ever done in deep space....so they just drop it like trash! Sure, of course...



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 05:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

No. We don't know. It is not as good as some shield material, it is better than others. What it is is light. You also need to remember, because you never seem to, that aluminium was not the only construction material Apollo.


""They say" do they? OK we'll go with that, in which case how can you argue that Apollo astronauts would have been at risk? Where have you got the idea that aluminium shielding is worse than no shielding? Speciically, what words were used?

Where do they say that? Where are they talking about planning short term missions like Apollo? And again, if you are relying on sources which you claim don't know precise levels of risk from radiation, how are you able to be so definitive with your assessment that Apollo was inadequately protected from it?



Aluminum is not only a poor shield in deep space, it makes it worse than before.

Saying it is better than other materials is saying a tornado is better than a hurricane - a bad thing compared to another bad thing, do you get the point here?


Constellation planned for short missions, with their initial missions. Just like Apollo's, in fact, only this time, they tried to have real moon landings, instead!



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

No. We don't know. It is not as good as some shield material, it is better than others. What it is is light. You also need to remember, because you never seem to, that aluminium was not the only construction material Apollo.


""They say" do they? OK we'll go with that, in which case how can you argue that Apollo astronauts would have been at risk? Where have you got the idea that aluminium shielding is worse than no shielding? Speciically, what words were used?

Where do they say that? Where are they talking about planning short term missions like Apollo? And again, if you are relying on sources which you claim don't know precise levels of risk from radiation, how are you able to be so definitive with your assessment that Apollo was inadequately protected from it?



Aluminum is not only a poor shield in deep space, it makes it worse than before.


Yes, but that's one reason why Apollo missions were kept short, and one thing that prevented longer-term missions to the Moon after the Apollo program ended. Apollo had no purposely-built radiation shielding -- and as you said the aluminum used in the structure and skin of the craft actually made that radiation worse.

However, that long-duration mission radiation problem is not really evidence that Apollo didn't happen. That's just the reason why 2 weeks was about the maximum duration for Apollo, and one reason why we didn't follow-up Apollo in the 1970s with long-duration missions. The spacecraft technology of the time would not allow for long durations (longer than a couple of weeks) away from Earth, because they didn't really have a lightweight and effective radiation shielding.

Bout how exactly do you see that as evidence that we didn't go to the Moon?


edit on 4/9/2016 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

And where in Apollo's data do they say they received dangerous doses of radiation? How long was the shortest Constellation mission planned? You've already stated that that 'they don't know' the effects on humans, yet somehow you can definitively state that you know what the effect would have been during Apollo.

Sitting there typing the same sentences with no actual quotations, no context, no references, no numbers and expecting everyone to buy your standard line without the supporting data in't cutting it - do you get that yet?

I shook hands with an Apollo astronaut today - the 7th one I've met. He went to the moon. You know what his attitude was? It's a risky business, you deal with it. If you were scared by any of it you were in the wrong job.

You have failed completely to demonstrate that the space vehicles they traveled in were not up to the job, failed to demonstrate that they weren't properly researched and tested (need me to post a photograph of the ascent module being tested at White Sands?), and failed to provide any figures to support your claims about the radiation doses received by Apollo astronauts being dangerous.

Do you understand why this makes your claims unconvincing arguments? Do you get that yet?



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 11:53 PM
link   
Here's proof, in this GAO document, that NASA had no idea of how much money they needed to reach their goal (of a manned moon mission)....I've bolded it for you, to make it easy to find...

NASA is still struggling to develop a solid business case—including firm
requirements, mature technologies, a knowledge-based acquisition strategy, a
realistic cost estimate, and sufficient funding and time—needed to justify
moving the Constellation program forward into the implementation phase.
Gaps in the business case include
• significant technical and design challenges for the Orion and Ares I
vehicles, such as limiting vibration during launch, eliminating the risk of
hitting the launch tower during lift off, and reducing the mass of the Orion
vehicle, represent considerable hurdles that must be overcome in order to
meet safety and performance requirements; and
• a poorly phased funding plan that runs the risk of funding shortfalls in
fiscal years 2009 through 2012, resulting in planned work not being
completed to support schedules and milestones. This approach has
limited NASA’s ability to mitigate technical risks early in development and
precludes the orderly ramp up of workforce and developmental activities.
In response to these gaps, NASA delayed the date of its first crewed-flight and
changed its acquisition strategy for the Orion project. NASA acknowledges
that funding shortfalls reduce the agency’s flexibility in resolving technical
challenges.

...

Nevertheless, NASA estimates that Ares I and Orion represent up to
$49 billion of the over $97 billion estimated to be spent on the Constellation
program through 2020. While the agency has already obligated more than $10
billion in contracts, at this point NASA does not know how much Ares I and
Orion will ultimately cost, and will not know until technical and design
challenges have been addressed.



We have issued a number of reports and testimonies that touch on various
aspects of NASA’s Constellation program and in particular the
development efforts under way for the Orion and Ares I projects. These
reports and testimonies have questioned the affordability and overall
acquisition strategy for each project and have stressed repeatedly NASA’s
need to develop a sound business case — which includes firm
requirements, mature technologies, a knowledge-based acquisition
strategy, a realistic cost estimate, and sufficient funding and time — to
support the Constellation program before making long-term commitments.

The Constellation program has not yet developed all of the elements of a
sound business case needed to justify entry into implementation. Progress
has been made; however, technical and design challenges are still
significant and until they are resolved NASA will not be able to reliably
estimate the time and money needed to execute the program.



www.gao.gov...

If you had read these documents, you'd know what I said was NOT something I made up. And then, you wouldn't have ended up with egg on your face.


On a side note, the same report indicates Orion is now being designed as an LEO vehicle...

According to the Constellation program manager, the Constellation program is currently
deferring work on Orion lunar content beyond 2015 to focus its efforts on
developing a vehicle that can fly the ISS mission.


So even after they build a fully functional vehicle, it won't even be capable of going to the moon! I guess that's why it's built with aluminum, as I said - it will never fly humans into deep space.

This is very interesting, because...

Apollo's vehicles were capable of manned moon missions, right away, when they were first built. They first flew manned LEO missions, and then flew manned moon missions, without a hitch. Not only that, the first manned moon mission - Apollo 8 - was supposed to be an LEO mission. NASA changed it to a manned moon mission, and only 6 months later, it (supposedly) flew astronauts to the moon, and back to Earth, with no problem.

And they did it with the same vehicles, as I said.

This shows - yet again - how Apollo managed to do everything so perfectly, over 40 years ago. Saturn V works for LEO missions, and lunar missions, and I'm sure it would work for Mars missions, too. There is nothing it cannot do!

Orion was planned to be a vehicle capable of lunar missions, too. We had over 40 years of advanced technology, to help us build it. And someday, it might fly in LEO, but never to the moon!!


But I'm sure it's a lack of money, that's all...



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 12:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Box of Rain

Yes, but that's one reason why Apollo missions were kept short, and one thing that prevented longer-term missions to the Moon after the Apollo program ended. Apollo had no purposely-built radiation shielding -- and as you said the aluminum used in the structure and skin of the craft actually made that radiation worse.

However, that long-duration mission radiation problem is not really evidence that Apollo didn't happen. That's just the reason why 2 weeks was about the maximum duration for Apollo, and one reason why we didn't follow-up Apollo in the 1970s with long-duration missions. The spacecraft technology of the time would not allow for long durations (longer than a couple of weeks) away from Earth, because they didn't really have a lightweight and effective radiation shielding.

Bout how exactly do you see that as evidence that we didn't go to the Moon?



It is consistent with the argument that we didn't go to the moon, which makes it supporting evidence. It is not evidence in itself, it confirms the case, as a whole.

Now, to your point that Apollo missions were kept short because of aluminum making radiation worse in deep space....

They DID NOT KNOW that aluminum was a poor shield in deep space, at the time of Apollo.

We only found that out recently, long after Apollo (supposedly) flew in deep space, in aluminum craft, without any problems.

NOW, they have to make excuses for Apollo. They say Apollo had only short missions in deep space, and it's only long term missions that can't use aluminum shielding.

I've cited papers on this, and they DO NOT SAY aluminum shielding is adequate for short-term missions in deep space. They refer to long-term missions, as a way to avoid the issue of Apollo.

However, they say ALL future craft we build for manned missions in deep space will NOT have aluminum shielding. NONE. They do NOT make any sort of exclusions to this. In fact, they state long-term and/or DEEP SPACE missions will not use aluminum shielding. Which means ALL missions in deep space.



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 12:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

The final bill for Apollo was $25.4bn, $1.5bn over the January 1969 estimate, all costed and itemised. Initial estimates when Kennedy set his goal were $20bn. Far from constantly having to beg for more money, they had a very good idea of how much they needed and where the money needed to be spent.

In 2005 this report suggested $100bn

www.space.com...

Allowing or efficiency improvements will probably offset inflationary costs, and I've seen that figure quoted elsewhere as the equivalent of 1969 money. That $100bn is a NASA figure, which says to me they know how much money they need. That's very different from "NASA have no idea".



By now, you should know they had no idea. I've shown proof of that, in fact.

You also brought up a figure of $100 billion, which IS a NASA figure. It's mentioned in this same GAO report....

Nevertheless, NASA estimates that Ares I and Orion represent up to
$49 billion of the over $97 billion estimated to be spent on the Constellation
program through 2020. While the agency has already obligated more than $10
billion in contracts, at this point NASA does not know how much Ares I and
Orion will ultimately cost, and will not know until technical and design
challenges have been addressed.


www.gao.gov...


The $100 billion you say is enough to get to the moon, which they estimated was enough money to get them to the moon, will NOT get them to the moon, in fact.

Do you grasp the point yet?



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 12:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

basically this is the story you have weaved so far.

it was really a lack of shielding technology that they never had of which they did have in 2007 by looking at the report you like to quote from but they didnt have this technology in 2009 when they cancelled constellation because "lack of money excuses", as you say, to develope this technology which existed in 2007 but still needed to develope this technology using moneys by 2009 of which they failed to do even though it existed in 2007, as shown from your own report, and disappeared in 2009, due to "lack of money excuse" from developing new technology that doesnt exist yet but does exist.

nice web of lies and contradictions you have built.



No, this is YOUR web of lies, which I never said.

You're even putting it all in italics, as if you're quoting me, which is deception, on top of your lies.

You can't quote my own words, so you're hoping to make it 'appear' to be my words?!


Truly pathetic.



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 03:22 AM
link   
We're finding out why. Because space might not even exist.



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

That's not my claim, as I've already explained to you, at length.

Aluminum is a poor shield in deep space, as we know..

They don't say aluminum craft would be 100% deadly, and neither do I say it.


ok ok, so its not deadly??

so if someone was to be in an aluminum craft exposed to GCR's regardless of how long, they would have no issues whatsoever??


No, this is YOUR web of lies, which I never said.


perhaps you dont follow your own web of lies or you are in denial?

do you deny that the report you quote from states that single manned missions to the moon is possible and that the report was dated 2007?

do you also deny that you believe constellation was cancelled around 2009 because they did not have a means of shielding GCR's and needed to develope new unknown shielding??

which one do you deny??

p.s. in your reports they say that aluminum needed to be about 45-50g/cm^2 thick in order to be at a satisfactory level.
45-50g/cm^2 aluminum is about 18cm thick. some car manufacturers have been making single aluminum block engines for a while so thickness is not an issue, and if money is just an "excuse" mass is not much of an issue neither unless you want to deny the mass of the ISS?
edit on 10-4-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

They DID NOT KNOW that aluminum was a poor shield in deep space, at the time of Apollo.


Yes they did. The concept of Bremsstrahlung or "Breaking radiation" has been known about since the 19th century. The idea that metals create this secondary breaking radiation known as "Bremsstrahlung" from particle radiation (such as cosmic rays) was something that had previously been demonstrated in laboratories a long time prior to the space age.

And the Aluminum was NOT added as a radiation shield. The aluminum on Apollo was simply the structure of the craft. There was no material added to Apollo for the express purpose of radiation shielding. Most of the radiation protection came from the fibrous insulation between the inner and outer hulls of the Command Module, and was put there for insulating purposes -- not for radiation shielding.



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 53  54  55    57  58  59 >>

log in

join