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.

 

2 nasa employees admitting people can't go to the moon yet....

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: DogMeat




PS. was this meant to be a rhetorical question?


Sorta, what I mean is that if you are going to debunk something, then explain why its bunk, dont just say it's bunk.

My issue is with the Van Allen Belt part.

Why do they have to solve the issues with radiation before they send astronauts through them, if this apparently was not an issue that needed solving, with the Apollo missions?




posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: RogueWave

Because the spacecraft they they are going to be using (Orion) is equipped with very sensitive electronic systems that the spacecraft in the 1960s was not equipped with.

We know how to harden that equipment now (we've been doing it for probes for a very long time now), however, one is a probe, the other is a space craft with life support systems. Hence all the testing they've been doing with the Orion space craft.

If a mistake was made, or something not caught before happened to your probe, you're just out of a probe. But if the same thing were to happen to a space craft with humans in it, it would be a much worse disaster.

The Orion space craft is designed to have people in space exposed to much higher levels of radiation and for longer periods than the Apollo space craft was designed for. Orion is not for just getting to the moon and back. They want to use it for longer term missions in deep space too.

I find it quite silly that moon hoaxers try to use this. It's the same thing as comparing an old TV made int he 60's to a big flat screen TV of today: The one built in the 60's you could spray the hell out of it with glass cleaner and put a LOT of elbow grease into cleaning it's screen with a rag.

Would you do that with a huge 52 inch flat screen TV of today? Absolutely not. You'd ruin the screen and the whole TV. But according to moon hoaxers, because we can't simply do the same thing with the modern technology, it must mean that TV's never existed in the 60's......

Utter pile of crap argument.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: TerminalVelocity




The Orion space craft is designed to have people in space exposed to much higher levels of radiation and for longer periods than the Apollo space craft was designed for. Orion is not for just getting to the moon and back. They want to use it for longer term missions in deep space too.


But they were refering to astronauts travelling through the Van Allen Belts specifically.


"We must solve this challenge before we send people through this region of space"



So your explanation doesn't cut it.





Utter pile of crap argument.


Your comparison and explanation is.
edit on 17-10-2015 by RogueWave because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: webstra




I think this will bring the apollo fairytale to an end.


Kinda hard to bring it to an end, since it, well, happened. Several times.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Astronauts can survive flying through the Van Allen belts. During the Apollo missions in the late 60's early 70's there traversal time through the Van Allen belts was about 10 or 15 minutes total for each mission to the moon. They endured a insignificantly small dose of radiation during their traverasal time.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: eManym

So why is it now an issue that needs to be solved first?



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: RogueWave
a reply to: eManym

So why is it now an issue that needs to be solved first?


For this specific spacecraft.

He is not talking in general terms.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: onebigmonkey


"We must solve this challenge before we send people through this region of space"


Does it say "people", or "spacecraft"?

Why didn't he say, "before we send people through space, IN THIS SPACECRAFT"?
edit on 17-10-2015 by RogueWave because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 12:18 PM
link   


2 nasa employees admitting people can't go to the moon yet....


Only 2 say this out of how many that work at NASA...think I will go with the majority that says we can and did.

As soon as we can get the correct vehicles for the job it may happen again, but as of right now Mars is a higher priority for NASA.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 12:20 PM
link   
The more time that goes by and we still have no return trip to the moon really begins to seed the thought that we never went. Name one other time Americans have done something great and not repeated it over and over. It does not add up.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: webstra

Just like the 9/11 nonsense there is no way a conspiracy of that magnitude could be kept secret.

I wouldn't be so sure about the "9/11 nonsense".

soulwaxer



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
The more time that goes by and we still have no return trip to the moon really begins to seed the thought that we never went. Name one other time Americans have done something great and not repeated it over and over. It does not add up.

Well, one major thing Americans have repeated over and over is buffing up its military and bullying or dominating the world over... which is exactly the reason they haven't gone back to the Moon. Political and military dominance over the world takes up the majority of the budget, time, and resources. Otherwise, they would have been setting up Mars bases by now.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: wildespace

I see your point but do not agree with it.

I think that if they did really go to the moon then they are still going and if they faked it then they are just riding the wave of falsehood into a future where they are trying desperately to have more advancements in tech. to overcome problems with travel.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: RogueWave

Weak. Very weak. I'm sure you can do better than that.

They do not strap boosters on to the backs of astronauts and blast them into orbit. They are IN the spacecraft.

If the spacecraft ceases to function properly there will be issues. It's all new tech, and has to be tested.

You guys will really grasp at straws desperately, and your argument really shows it.

I actually feel very sorry for you guys.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Look at the Van Allen Belts, they took the polar route. Very little rads.
The new approach is to go in as much a straight line as possible.
Hence more rads... more dense belts. We need light and sturdy craft to make long trips as the fuel load is huge..
Just my 2 cents.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 05:02 PM
link   
If this is real it would be nice :


Russian engineers, tired of debating whether the US really landed on the moon, have decided to build a satellite to receive footage from there.


Micro-satellite to inspect if Americans did land on Moon



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 05:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: mazzroth

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: webstra
I can't bring it more clearly to you then what these nasa employees have to say.

Nasa engineer Kelly Smith, talking about the Van Allen belt :

"We must solve this challenge before we send people through this region of space"

ISS Commander Terry Virts is saying :

"Right now we only can fly in earth orbit"

I think this will bring the apollo fairytale to an end.

What do you think ?

They did solve it, they flew through the weakest point really fast.


Did they lose the directions ? one Shuttle could of easily gone there compared to the 1960's tech the Apollo lander had. So your basically saying no the Shuttles weren't kitted out to fly there but some patchy looking box with legs could ? Don't give me the "No Motive" crap either, one cargo bay full of Helium 3 is a couple of billion dollars worth of ore.

Well, you did just describe two completely different crafts built with 2 completely different purposes.

The shuttle wasn't designed to be anything other than a LEO craft.

The Apollo landers were designed to leave LEO, travel fast, and with the bare efficiency needed make a trip to the moon and back survivable.

originally posted by: mazzroth

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: webstra
I can't bring it more clearly to you then what these nasa employees have to say.

Nasa engineer Kelly Smith, talking about the Van Allen belt :

"We must solve this challenge before we send people through this region of space"

ISS Commander Terry Virts is saying :

"Right now we only can fly in earth orbit"

I think this will bring the apollo fairytale to an end.

What do you think ?

They did solve it, they flew through the weakest point really fast.

one Shuttle could of easily gone there compared to the 1960's tech the Apollo lander had.

No, you should actually do a little bit of research before making wild claims. The shuttle could NEVER have gone to the moon.


Ok so then put a lander inside the cargo bay then, we still have the plans for the lander dont we ?



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: webstra
2 nasa employees admitting people can't go to the moon yet....

So, when I look through my telescope and see the trash and beer bottles littering the moon


Where did you buy that telescope?

I want one of them bad boys.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: mazzroth

You're still showing that you've neglected to do any research.

The shuttles were not designed for leaving LEO.

The Lift Vehicle was not designed to put the shuttle into a Lunar Injection orbit.

This isn't something you do on a whim.

Oh, and "No." the LEM would not fit in the shuttle's cargo bay.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: mazzroth

Did they lose the directions ? one Shuttle could of easily gone there compared to the 1960's tech the Apollo lander had. So your basically saying no the Shuttles weren't kitted out to fly there but some patchy looking box with legs could ? Don't give me the "No Motive" crap either, one cargo bay full of Helium 3 is a couple of billion dollars worth of ore.


I think you're missing chunks of the big picture here.

The "patchy looking box with legs" is the lunar lander. It was along for the ride. But it wasn't what they were in on the flight, except for Apollo 13's return.

In order to GET to the moon, you have to heave a huge amount of mass into Earth orbit first. That took the Saturn 5, which we can't build anymore and don't have a current equivalent for. The reason you have to toss a lot of mass up there is that in order to get out of orbit and start on your way to the moon, you have to have a wad of fuel after you GET to orbit.

That's used to accelerate the command module/service module/LEM stack to escape velocity. You have to be booking to get out of orbit, and you come back just as fast on the return leg.

The shuttle doesn't have much in the way of fuel left when it achieves LEO. It wasn't designed to even get into high orbit, much less get to the Moon. And it couldn't live through a Lunar return, either.

There's a lot more to it than tossing a LEM in the back and packing some extra food.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join