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: 70
57
<< 67  68  69    71  72  73 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2016 @ 08:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: SerpentMoon87

if you knew why did you say only one computer and only one DSKY??

are you telling me when you researched it you found there were two guidance computers (lunar + command module) and two DSKY on the command module and you deliberately posted that there was only one?? and only one DSKY??

did you just admit to deliberately posting false misleading information??

wow that was fast.


NO, i said that one craft, per craft!! They had an AGC and a way to communicate with it, came a DSKY system. And by ONE i mean there was no back up for either of the systems. Not on one craft..




posted on May, 18 2016 @ 08:44 PM
link   
a reply to: SerpentMoon87

sorry that is moving the goal posts.. you never mentioned CRAFT you specifically said Apollo Missions ill requote you


Apollo missions, carried an AGC, Apollo Guidance computer, which they communicated with using one DSKY system, it was the first ''integrated circuit based computer'' which used silicon chips, and they all only had one which absolutely had to function 100%, radiation, especially ionized particles be it alpha or beta, nuclei and others literally fry silicon based electronics.

Yes they had a gyroscope, and visual guidence, which all had to be translated through the DSKY to the AGC system electronically to operate the craft.

Let's start with that okay, one thing at a time.


i have bolded everything that contradicts what you just said, also on the command module alone there was TWO DSKY not one, so that alone has two DSKY on one craft.. again contradicting your new goal post shift.

p.s. and btw the purpose of having two crafts with a guidance computer each was for redundancy, with the lunar module having the AGS as its backup for getting back into lunar orbit. so your claim that there was no backup is false since both the command and lunar module have one each and the lunar module having the AGS as well.. as well as ground control doing the majority of the trajectory calculations.
edit on 18-5-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: choos

Thank you for correcting me, much appreciated. A guidance system which has an integrated circuit based computer, per craft. Thank you, that is what i meant, but you obviously see the problem now no? A system sensitive to the very specific radiation that space is full of (Not low earth orbit). The design of both crafts have weak spots. The missions lasted days.



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 08:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: SerpentMoon87

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: SerpentMoon87

if you knew why did you say only one computer and only one DSKY??

are you telling me when you researched it you found there were two guidance computers (lunar + command module) and two DSKY on the command module and you deliberately posted that there was only one?? and only one DSKY??

did you just admit to deliberately posting false misleading information??

wow that was fast.


NO, i said that one craft, per craft!! They had an AGC and a way to communicate with it, came a DSKY system. And by ONE i mean there was no back up for either of the systems. Not on one craft..


This subject hits home for me and people like you annoy me.

My grandfather worked for Union Carbide for 38 years and a full 2 years of that was spent working with the group in Tennessee to develop and manufacture the Lunar Sample Return Conatainer.

Of course according to you, all this was a sham and a smokescreen. 2 years for nothing. Everybody paid off.

Get a grip son.



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: SerpentMoon87

how about you look at the difference between this "integrated circuit" and current integrated circuits..

how about you look up how the guidance computers deals with errors..

how about you look up how particle radiation actually affects integrated circuits..

p.s. why not make it easy and you explain how particle radiation would fry the guidance computer?

p.p.s and no i dont completely see what the problem you are trying to convey now, you said there was no backup, but now you agree that there was as in the lunar module is the backup for the command and the AGS was the backup for the lunar module guidance.
edit on 18-5-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 09:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: SerpentMoon87

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: SerpentMoon87

if you knew why did you say only one computer and only one DSKY??

are you telling me when you researched it you found there were two guidance computers (lunar + command module) and two DSKY on the command module and you deliberately posted that there was only one?? and only one DSKY??

did you just admit to deliberately posting false misleading information??

wow that was fast.


NO, i said that one craft, per craft!! They had an AGC and a way to communicate with it, came a DSKY system. And by ONE i mean there was no back up for either of the systems. Not on one craft..


This subject hits home for me and people like you annoy me.

My grandfather worked for Union Carbide for 38 years and a full 2 years of that was spent working with the group in Tennessee to develop and manufacture the Lunar Sample Return Conatainer.

Of course according to you, all this was a sham and a smokescreen. 2 years for nothing. Everybody paid off.

Get a grip son.


Why for nothing? I never said that, oh they found something, which probably disproved very popular beliefs, religion, science, famous mathematical achievements by the giants of the past, to think of it as nothing is truly insulting, and i am not here to insult anyone.

My whole point is, that what they tell us about space doesn't match up with the security, or lack of, measures to ensure the survival of the crew, in conditions specified by the very people i question, NASA them selfs claim, that they are to dangerous for electronics and humans to travel through, to this day.



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 09:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: SerpentMoon87NASA them selfs claim, that they are to dangerous for electronics and humans to travel through, to this day.



again false..

seriously question your ability to research..

computer hardware today is very very different from hardware from the 60's.. specifically SIZE..

particle radiation can change 1 to 0 and vice versa which makes the program not function the way its supposed to. not so much a problem with 60's hardware.



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 09:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: SerpentMoon87

how about you look at the difference between this "integrated circuit" and current integrated circuits..

how about you look up how the guidance computers deals with errors..

how about you look up how particle radiation actually affects integrated circuits..

p.s. why not make it easy and you explain how particle radiation would fry the guidance computer?

p.p.s and no i dont completely see what the problem you are trying to convey now, you said there was no backup, but now you agree that there was as in the lunar module is the backup for the command and the AGS was the backup for the lunar module guidance.


I am not your babysitter, you have access to the same technology as i do. Do a simple search on radiation effects on electronics and they have a wide range of studies, especially ionized radiation particles.

The effects are random but all debilitating to a system that has to work at a 100% were talking about landing at high speeds, traveling to and from a destination which requires that said system, the lifting off and docking at high speeds, any one of those commands fails, and you die.

What about the windows? They don't protect anyone from anything, except UV and temperature differences.



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: SerpentMoon87

Have you got some sort of debilitating allergic reaction to posting evidence?



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 09:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: SerpentMoon87NASA them selfs claim, that they are to dangerous for electronics and humans to travel through, to this day.



again false..

seriously question your ability to research..

computer hardware today is very very different from hardware from the 60's.. specifically SIZE..

particle radiation can change 1 to 0 and vice versa which makes the program not function the way its supposed to. not so much a problem with 60's hardware.


? It's the same...... just more memory and the ability to convert files.. it doesn't matter if it changes, the crafts exposure to radiation is random that doesn't make it safe, it's constant and random. It would only take one highly charged beta particle to penetrate, as small as it is, and take out the landing gear, or multiple functions if not all.



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: SerpentMoon87




What about the windows? They don't protect anyone from anything, except UV and temperature differences.

Tell us about the construction of the windows, please.



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 09:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: SerpentMoon87

Have you got some sort of debilitating allergic reaction to posting evidence?


No, but you might have an allergy to using a search engine, i named the parts, the crafts layout and design is online available to the public, radiation studies in the belts is still ongoing and they have pages and pages of reading.

Many land based radiation studies have been are being conducted. it's available to us equally.


edit on 18-5-2016 by SerpentMoon87 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 09:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SerpentMoon87




What about the windows? They don't protect anyone from anything, except UV and temperature differences.

Tell us about the construction of the windows, please.


They use tempered and annealed glass, that's what NASA says, its just the difference in the control in temperature that's different and how each one is cooled.... SEARCH IT UP.



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 09:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: SerpentMoon87

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: SerpentMoon87

Have you got some sort of debilitating allergic reaction to posting evidence?


No, but you might have an allergy to using a search engine, i named the parts, the crafts layout and design is online available to the public, radiation studies in the belts is still ongoing and they have pages and pages of reading.

Many land based radiation studies have been are being conducted land based, it's available to us equally.



How do probes survive it?
edit on 18-5-2016 by In4ormant because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: SerpentMoon87

Yet you fail to prove it, then expect me to do all the work for you. That's a bad work ethic.



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

If someone claimed they filmed the fake landings, would you believe them?



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 10:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: SerpentMoon87

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SerpentMoon87




What about the windows? They don't protect anyone from anything, except UV and temperature differences.

Tell us about the construction of the windows, please.


They use tempered and annealed glass, that's what NASA says, its just the difference in the control in temperature that's different and how each one is cooled.... SEARCH IT UP.


"Tempered and annealed" doesn't say anything about the construction of the windows. Do you think that more than 1" of glass has no radiation shielding capabilities?



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 10:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: SerpentMoon87

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: SerpentMoon87

Have you got some sort of debilitating allergic reaction to posting evidence?


No, but you might have an allergy to using a search engine, i named the parts, the crafts layout and design is online available to the public, radiation studies in the belts is still ongoing and they have pages and pages of reading.

Many land based radiation studies have been are being conducted land based, it's available to us equally.



How do probes survive it?


They don't, or by today's standard of space so far, they shouldn't. But considering military technology in the 50's, i assume and only assume they use none disclosed methods to do so.



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 10:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: SerpentMoon87
I am not your babysitter, you have access to the same technology as i do. Do a simple search on radiation effects on electronics and they have a wide range of studies, especially ionized radiation particles.


im not asking you for my sake.. im asking you so you dont look so silly going on this tirade about how the Apollo guidance computer would be "fried" from particle radiation.


The effects are random but all debilitating to a system that has to work at a 100% were talking about landing at high speeds, traveling to and from a destination which requires that said system, the lifting off and docking at high speeds, any one of those commands fails, and you die.


incorrect, the Apollo guidance computer was very tolerant to particle radiation. the important programs were stored in "core rope memory" you tell me what is affected by particle radiation more core rope or solid state?


What about the windows? They don't protect anyone from anything, except UV and temperature differences.


what should they be protecting against??


? It's the same...... just more memory and the ability to convert files.. it doesn't matter if it changes, the crafts exposure to radiation is random that doesn't make it safe, it's constant and random. It would only take one highly charged beta particle to penetrate, as small as it is, and take out the landing gear, or multiple functions if not all.


same?? you didnt even bother to research it right?? again you have shown your ability to research, again its no wonder you believe Apollo was faked.

look how core rope memory is affected by cosmic radiation and how solid state memory is affected by cosmic radiation.



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: SerpentMoon87

You do realize that radiation affects older computers a lot differently than it does modern computers right?



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 67  68  69    71  72  73 >>

log in

join