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: 85
57
<< 82  83  84    86  87  88 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2016 @ 09:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

They say NO future missions will use aluminum shielding for manned missions in deep space.

You can't make up exceptions, trying to save your argument....


explain Orion already.. Orion is a planned future spacecraft, it is using Aluminium as part of its main hull it goes against your argument 100%


Why are the Apollo missions an exception, or any short missions, if they never claimed it??


they arent an exception get it through your thick skull.. Apollo DID NOT NEED PROTECTION AGAINST GCR's IT WAS SIMPLY NOT EXPOSED TO GCR FOR LONG ENOUGH.


Because you have invented it, and nothing else...!


you have invented the idea that nothing is excluded.
you have invented the idea that one day exposed to GCR's is the same as one year.
you are the one having trouble differentiating between short exposure times and long exposure times.


To you, if Apollo missions aren't specifically mentioned, you think that - somehow - makes them an exception!?!?


what?? no that is not what i am saying at all..
i am saying that:
YOUR REPORTS HAVE PROVEN THAT 2 WEEKS EXPOSED TO GCR'S WHILE SURROUNDED BY THIN ALUMINIUM ONLY IS WITHIN ALL PRESCRIBED LIMITS.


A short mission is an exception since it isn't specifically mentioned. Of course, neither do they mention a long mission...

They make no exceptions, or single out one type (ie: a 'long' stay)...

That's the truth, you need to get over it..


are you crazy??
a mission to mars is not a long mission??
your report is looking specifically for a better way to protect future astronauts on their mission to mars..


An exception you want to exist is not real, it is all of your own invention...



fine then, if its not an exception (no one is claiming it is but since you cant seem to get over it)
show me where they say that it isnt an exception. (playing your game)

and show me where they say that 1-2 weeks in deep space surrounded by aluminium absolutely cannot happen.




posted on Jul, 8 2016 @ 11:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People


originally posted by: turbonium1
They would NOT say all future spacecraft will not have aluminum shielding, for manned deep space missions. Because they'd know short missions can use aluminum, as Apollo had proved it ....right?

As a point of clarification, Apollo didn't use aluminum as shielding; they used aluminum as a skin of the craft. The bulk of the shielding was provided by the fibrous insulation between the outer skin and inner skin of the craft.

The aluminum skin was not intended to be shielding.





You can show me documents, which support your claims?

Shielding astronauts in deep space, with fibrous insulation....

They ignore the only material proven to shield humans in deep space, when figuring out how to shield humans in deep space, is that right?

So, aluminum works in deep space, when using fibrous insulation as a radiation shield...

Why are they saying aluminum can't shield humans in deep space, yet never even mention that 'fibrous insulation' HAS ALREADY PROVEN TO SHIELD HUMANS IN DEEP SPACE??!!?

This is nonsense...



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 12:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

fine then, if its not an exception (no one is claiming it is but since you cant seem to get over it)
show me where they say that it isnt an exception. (playing your game).


That's absurd...

They claim no future craft will be built with aluminum shielding for manned deep space missions...

If they didn't mean ALL future missions, they'd say so...


You would have every type of mission as an exception, since none were said NOT to be an exception!!


Get serious...



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 01:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

That's absurd...

They claim no future craft will be built with aluminum shielding for manned deep space missions...

If they didn't mean ALL future missions, they'd say so...


and yet they built Orion with Aluminium.....
you know.. the next generation manned spacecraft designed to go beyond the VAB, the very spacecraft you claim should not have any aluminium, yet is made mostly from aluminium..


You would have every type of mission as an exception, since none were said NOT to be an exception!!

Get serious...


and you would have a single day mission as having the same dose as a year long mission.
Get Serious...



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 02:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

That's absurd...

They claim no future craft will be built with aluminum shielding for manned deep space missions...

If they didn't mean ALL future missions, they'd say so...


and yet they built Orion with Aluminium.....
you know.. the next generation manned spacecraft designed to go beyond the VAB, the very spacecraft you claim should not have any aluminium, yet is made mostly from aluminium..


You would have every type of mission as an exception, since none were said NOT to be an exception!!

Get serious...


and you would have a single day mission as having the same dose as a year long mission.
Get Serious...


To build aluminum craft does not mean it can send humans into deep space.

We build it with aluminum because there is no better option at hand, not because it will work in deep space manned missions.

You need to prove me wrong, so when would that be?



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 02:09 AM
link   
Does Orion also have fibrous insulation shielding like Apollo used?

It works great, so I've heard



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 02:09 AM
link   
Double post
edit on 9-7-2016 by turbonium1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 02:35 AM
link   
We are realizing everything is harsh in deep space, not like Apollo made it look, easy to solve everything within a few years with 60's technology!



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 02:56 AM
link   
If I told you that I landed on the moon, over 40 years ago, and my proof is some images I took a month ago, with little dots and blobs of my gear and stuff, you'd buy this crap without a blink?



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 03:19 AM
link   
We said the VA Belts were well understood before Apollo flew to the moon. It was nothing at all like we said, which doesn't mean they lied about it or anything, right?

Honest they all be, we know that!,



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 03:28 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

If I told you that they landed on the moon over 40 years ago, and that my prove was reams of scientific data, countless photographs, 16mm video and live TV footage that was all corroborated by weather satellites at the time, and that showed details that was all corroborated by probes not just from the US but from India, Japan, China and the Soviet Union many years later, and if the details in the mission transcripts were completely in agreement with the observations of Apollo media and astronaut testimony, you'd still dismiss this on the basis of absolutely no evidence other than your own incredulity and predetermined opinions?



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 03:29 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

We knew it was harsh in space in the 1960s. No-one said it was easy. If it was easy it wouldn't have taken so long to get there.

Difficult is not impossible.



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 03:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

To build aluminum craft does not mean it can send humans into deep space.


and what? does being unsafe mean spaceflight is impossible??


We build it with aluminum because there is no better option at hand, not because it will work in deep space manned missions.

You need to prove me wrong, so when would that be?


prove you wrong about using aluminium for future manned spacecrafts??

Orion does that well enough.

is Orion a future manned spacecraft?? YES
does Orion use Aluminium in its hull?? YES
does Orion prove Turbonium1 wrong about not using aluminium in future manned spacecraft?? YES



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 03:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
If I told you that I landed on the moon, over 40 years ago, and my proof is some images I took a month ago, with little dots and blobs of my gear and stuff, you'd buy this crap without a blink?


on your budget??? laughable..

id be impressed if you could even afford a 1:4 scale non working model.



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 05:02 AM
link   

a reply to: choos

are you even able to prove that the signals baysinger received were not from the moon??



the propagandists are the ones claiming it came from the moon,, its up too them to prove it or stop claiming it as proof,
Its just another example of a propagandists claim thats validity can not be verified,
edit on 9-7-2016 by Misinformation because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 06:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Misinformation

Wrong.

It is Baysinger who is stating as a fact that the signals came from the moon, because the only voices are Aldrin and Armstrong, nothing from Houston.



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 09:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Misinformation


a reply to: choos

are you even able to prove that the signals baysinger received were not from the moon??



the propagandists are the ones claiming it came from the moon,, its up too them to prove it or stop claiming it as proof,
Its just another example of a propagandists claim thats validity can not be verified,


so you cant prove that the signals baysinger received did not come from the moon or even that they came from somewhere on earth??

and yet you ARE able to prove that "nefarious groups" were able to trick UFO researchers by finding out that those signals were not extra-terrestrial and did originate from Earth.. hmmmmmm ok..
edit on 9-7-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 01:58 AM
link   
The problem with aluminum, spalling from particle radiation, seems like it would be problematic with a thin skin of the craft itself, which Orion could be more of a thicker billet aluminum, rather than sheet al like in an aircraft. After a certain thickness, it could "catch" the spall.

I can't really say, but thick al might be ok and thin al might be unsafe.



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

They have no proof like you would not have any proof, then..

to have done over 40 years ago has to be easy to prove with clear, highly detailed images of all landing sites, at least..

The images of Earth taken from orbit have shown very small objects with superb clarity.

This would mean they have no excuse for not taking such close and detailed images of landing sites...

That is the problem here..

You say they have no need for such images in any way at all, and they have good enough images now...

Not any reason to take close and detailed images of the landing sites, right?

We don't have any idea of what they look like after 45 years, in the lunar environment...

Everything good, then!!

Nice try..



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 10:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

To build aluminum craft does not mean it can send humans into deep space.


and what? does being unsafe mean spaceflight is impossible??


We build it with aluminum because there is no better option at hand, not because it will work in deep space manned missions.

You need to prove me wrong, so when would that be?


prove you wrong about using aluminium for future manned spacecrafts??

Orion does that well enough.

is Orion a future manned spacecraft?? YES
does Orion use Aluminium in its hull?? YES
does Orion prove Turbonium1 wrong about not using aluminium in future manned spacecraft?? YES


No, that is NOT what I claimed!!

I said they were not going to build spacecraft with aluminum as shielding for a manned deep space mission...

Got it, yet?



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 82  83  84    86  87  88 >>

log in

join