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.

 

Moon landings - faked, met with aliens or the official story?

page: 6
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People


I posted links on 2 posts before re the probes he does not seen to recognize that a link appears as blue.




posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: IwillbeHONEST

Again case you missed it

The engine cut off the probes bent and guess what the legs had shock absorbers clever people at NASA , so again the drop is not what you assumed.

I posted links to images of the probes on previous pages we do try to help if you see blue writing click on it.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: IwillbeHONEST
...acknowledged. The entire LEM fell 5ft to its landing. Unreal.


Yes. but its downward velocity at the time was near zero, so basically the LM fell from a height of 5 feet (about 4 feet actually, because of the time interval between the contact light coming on and the astronauts manually cutting the engines). The landing struts were designed to allow for this, just like a plane's landing gear are designed to allows for a certain amount of movement in the "downwards" direction when a plane lands.


edit on 8/3/2015 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Okay, so this is getting good. Now it has amazing shock absorbers, which allowed it to fall 5ft at a weight of 5333lbs on the moon. So, how much did it dip on impact? How was the rocket booster not damaged? It would have had to hit the ground on impact if we are to believe the shock absorbers lessened the blow of the landing.

Where is this impact as the booster sits merely inches above the surface?

upload.wikimedia.org...

No marks either in the regolith.

Hey-ooohhhh!



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: IwillbeHONEST




Maybe they weren't made to penetrate. Now I'm lead to believe the engine was shut off and the entire LEM fell 5ft to the ground. How much did that weigh on the moon?



Less than it does here on Earth...but had you looked at the provided information at the link I gave you would have seen the struts for the lander so it wasn't a hard landing.



So it still weight 5333lbs on the moon? Would you let that fall that far? I certainly wouldn't let my car fall five feet in the air.


Which is why they used struts to soften the landing...just as the way your struts work on your car, or motorcycle when going over a bump.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

A car going over a bump or falling straight down at 5ft?

Really? It's okay to be completely illogical if it's the Apollo fairy tale. Do you have any video of this type of landing other than the Apollo production? That would be nice to analyze.


edit on 3-8-2015 by IwillbeHONEST because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: IwillbeHONEST




Okay, so this is getting good. Now it has amazing shock absorbers, which allowed it to fall 5ft at a weight of 5333lbs on the moon.


Amazing you just disregard what you have been provided as they show you that your wrong all the way around.

Okay here lets try this one again...

www.ehartwell.com...

And when your there this time pay attention to the struts in the drawings, as they are made to go into each other to provide a softer landing than if had a rigid landing gear.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: IwillbeHONEST
Okay, so this is getting good. Now it has amazing shock absorbers, which allowed it to fall 5ft at a weight of 5333lbs on the moon. So, how much did it dip on impact? How was the rocket booster not damaged? It would have had to hit the ground on impact if we are to believe the shock absorbers lessened the blow of the landing.

Where is this impact as the booster sits merely inches above the surface?

upload.wikimedia.org...

No marks either in the regolith.

Hey-ooohhhh!


Well show everybody why the thruster would have to hit the surface, even if it was damage it wasn't needed for take off by the way a few years ago a thread started re this it went to 630+ pages and every BS claim people make for a hoax was shown to be wrong !

Even this has shock absorbers

A380

You can see radial marks on the surface they was a link on a previous page.



edit on 3-8-2015 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-8-2015 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: IwillbeHONEST

Did you ever come across a picture of Earth taken from the surface of the moon in which the earth has the estimated correct size. I noticed that in such pictures the earth appears to be too small...


edit on 3/8/2015 by zatara because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: IwillbeHONEST




A car going over a bump or falling straight down at 5ft?


You truly can't be serious as to not see the reason I said that, if you go over a bump with your car do the shock absorbers and struts make it a more comfortable ride?

So what is it you don't understand that the struts on the LM were there to work in the same way a car shock absorber, or strut works.



Really? It's okay to be completely illogical if it's the Apollo fairy tale. Do you have any video of this type of landing other than the Apollo production? That would be nice to analyze.


You do understand that this setup was made for the Apollo missions, and we haven't used that setup since so you won't find any other lander that has this. So of course that means it wasn't real...right?



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: IwillbeHONEST
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

A car going over a bump or falling straight down at 5ft?

Really? It's okay to be completely illogical if it's the Apollo fairy tale. Do you have any video of this type of landing other than the Apollo production? That would be nice to analyze.



Who needs a bridge




posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Here, I'll say this as easy as I can:

When a plane, or a car or a freaking trash can covered in tin foil - with any type of shock absorbing apparatus falls five feet, will the belly, booster or undercarriage move closer to the ground as the impact is absorbed? Now, if I drop a plane, car, LEM from 5ft, you realize that it will be forced downward as the shocks lessen the blow, correct?

That's how shocks work. That's how physics works. Now, are you stating that they had a hard or soft landing? Video of the landing seems rather smooth, so it would be a soft landing, which from 5ft would mean that booster certainly hit the ground because the entire body of the LEM would have dipped far more than 1ft, thus, impacting the booster to the lunar terrain.

Now, if it's a hard landing - well, you'll need to do more than give me a blue print. Proof of trauma in their voices or in the video would be a start. Thanks!



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: zatara
a reply to: IwillbeHONEST

Did you ever come across a picture of Earth taken from the surface of the moon in which the earth has the estimated correct size. I noticed that in such pictures the earth appears to be too small...



You will of course have checked the focal length of the lens used


Thought not.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 03:31 PM
link   
You forget the PROBES THEY ABSORB some of the force as well it's not rocket science well actually it is



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: IwillbeHONEST

Think of a car up on a lift at your mechanic's garage. The gap between the top of the tires and the wheel well is greater than when it is on the ground, and the distance between the underside of the car and the bottom of the tires is greater than when it is on the ground. That's because the shock absorbers are fully extended rather than pushed in.

When the LM was off the ground, the distance between the engine bell and the bottom of the pads was greater than when the LM is on the surface. That's also because the shock absorbers in the landing gear are in an extended position. Those shock absorbers push in when landing to...err...absorb the shock, which causes the distance between the bottom of the pads and the bottom of the engine bell to become shorter.


edit on 8/3/2015 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: IwillbeHONEST

Two different factors that aren't being mentioned here.
1) The probes under the landing pads did not automatically cut off the engine. They triggered a signal inside the module for the pilot to do so. They possibilities of immediate cutoff, engine firing all the way to landing, and somewhere in between had all been considered, rehearsed, and designed for. Armstrong didn't kill the engine instantly. And even if he had, it wouldn't have died instantly.There still would have been pressurized lines bleeding off.

2) The shock absorbing system in the cantilever landing legs were never made to be used more than once. Therefore they weren't the spring-loaded type found in vehicles or planes. They used a crushable honeycomb material to absorb the landing force. This was also necessary to keep the lander level if the surface wasn't. There was no rebound effect when it landed. They crushed and stayed at that extension.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Rally cars bottom out and also have the benefit of landing on a downward slant as well as forward momentum. Want to bet that car's suspension flexes enough that the bottom frame of that vehicle dips more than 12"? Now, put another 3000lbs in that car.

Also, the LEM didn't have the benefit of tires, which if we're being technical, will lessen the blow as well.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: pfishy

Yes, it is a different type of absorbing device. Yet, physics don't change (okay, a little on the moon but that's been accounted for).

The LM still had to absorb the blow.

Some video of this in action, outside of the LEM rather than inside would be great to analyze. Where can I find this?



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: IwillbeHONEST

Don't think any exists of the actual landing from an external POV. Because nobody had been there to set the camera up, obviously. But as far as tests, I'll see if I can find anything. And you are still glossing over what I just said about the engine.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: IwillbeHONEST
Rally cars bottom out and also have the benefit of landing on a downward slant as well as forward momentum. Want to bet that car's suspension flexes enough that the bottom frame of that vehicle dips more than 12"? Now, put another 3000lbs in that car.

Also, the LEM didn't have the benefit of tires, which if we're being technical, will lessen the blow as well.



Have you calculated the max velocity at impact about 2.2 m/s or about 4.9 mph if it fell 5 feet

You can check here Velocity under Moon Gravity

My car bumpers absorb a 5 mph impact.

edit on 3-8-2015 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join