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.

 

Learning to walk (to the Moon) all over again.

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:
jra

posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 06:43 AM
link   
ah... Well i'd assume that either they hadn't put the horizonal pole through the flag, or that the horizonal pole hasn't been stuck into the side of the verticle pole... Looking closely, there does appear to be a stright edge to what would be the top of the flag. So yes i'd say that they simple didn't put the horizonal pole into the main verticle one. For what reason I have no idea. Maybe they didn't get around to it yet, maybe it fell out. I don't know.

It would be nice to know what Apollo mission that was from so we could get a closer look. Why is it a big deal that the flag is hanging down anyway?



jra

posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 07:02 AM
link   
Ok I found which one it was. It was Apollo 12. In a lot of the pics the flag is hanging down. Perhaps something broke where the horizonal pole connects to the verticle part.

Here is Pete Conrad next to the flag. You can see that there is that horizonal pole in it, but that he's also holding it up.
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Another shot a little later.
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Another.
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Ah ha... did a quick google search.


From: www.rice.edu...
And when a bracket problem caused Apollo 12's flag to droop, engineers improved their design for subsequent flights to prevent it from happening again.


There's your answer.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Now this shows you don't know how to think, on the moon it is 1/6th earth's gravity O.K. the flag would be floating much higher than that in the picture's the flag is not why because the so called moon films are in actuality is filmed in a studio.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
Now this shows you don't know how to think, on the moon it is 1/6th earth's gravity O.K. the flag would be floating much higher than that in the picture's the flag is not why because the so called moon films are in actuality is filmed in a studio.


You're serious, aren't you?




I'll tell you what, Next time we'll just hire Spielberg to shoot the landings.


jra

posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
Now this shows you don't know how to think, on the moon it is 1/6th earth's gravity O.K. the flag would be floating much higher than that in the picture's the flag is not why because the so called moon films are in actuality is filmed in a studio.


I think it is you who is misinformed. You see, since there is gravity on the Moon, things will fall. Everything will fall. It doesn't matter how light it is, it will fall. Why do you think they put that little pole through the flag in the first place? Because it would fall and hang there. They even did an experiment with a hammer and a feather. They both fell at the same speed. You can't fake that on Earth.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 02:51 PM
link   
SiberianTiger,

Where was your beloved USSR during this whole "faking" fiasco. Don't you think the USSR was monitoring the whole thing on radar and communications channels and would be able to detect and willing expose any fraud committed by the U.S. government?

[edit on 2/4/2005 by djohnsto77]



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 05:12 PM
link   
First I don't support communism second USSR knew that the whole thing was fake and USSR knew that U.S wass doing it to make people start to think about trying to colonise the solar system, AGAIN if they were on the moon that flag would have floated what I mean by the flag is not the flagpole but the flag it self ya know the thing with the stars and strips, p.s. thousands of particles fly to the earth but are burnt up by the atmosphere, the same thing on the moon except the is no atmosphere and those particles actually hit the moon's surface if those astroNUTS (hehehe I had to spell it that way just for fun hehe) we're actually on the moon they would have died from the particles traviling thousands of miles an hour and hitting them, P.S. there is no air on the moon which means no "DRAG" for example a pitched throwing a fast ball on earth and makes the ball go at 90 miles per hour well if he could use the same stregnth to throw that ball on the moon it would go aroud 500 miles an hour scince there's no drag on the moon, I assure you if they we're on the moon every time they took a step the would have been traviling much faster and higher, for those who want to say thier space suits made them heavey and slow please look at the footage of how the move and you can see them using their feet just like on earth the reason they move slow is because NASA has edited the film to play in slowmotin, and the reason the hammer and feather fell at the same time is not because 1/6th on the moon it would be the same on earth exept 6 times slower for example if a hammer and feather are raised to 4 feet of the ground on earth and dropped and lets say it took the hammer 1 second to hit the ground and it took the feather 2 seconds to hit the ground if the hammer and feather was taken to the moon and raised 4 feet and dropped it would take the hammer 6 seconds to hit the moon's surface and it would take the feather 12 seconds, plain and simple like that, the real reason the NASA footage shows them hitting at the same time is because the footage is on earth AND the feather is actuall a fake feather made out of either wood or metal look at the experimental footage of the feather hammer thing here on the video scroll down to the part that says "RADIATION" and to the top right is the vidoe explaining how NASA FAKED the hammer feather thing www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...

[edit on 4-2-2005 by SiberianTiger]

[edit on 4-2-2005 by SiberianTiger]



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Moan hoax thories
Bunked, rebunked, de bunked, and be bunked. I have to agree with the poster above you. The CCCP would have gone to great lengths to propagandize this if true..

If this thread is going to disolve into another moon hoax thread, it will be closed.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 05:20 PM
link   
OH I don't think you've seen actual UNedited footages like these I ask you as the moderator just read the link I provided if you still don't believe then you don't believe but it won't hurt and I promise you "You ain't neva seen nothing like this" www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...


jra

posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
First I don't support communism second USSR knew that the whole thing was fake and USSR knew that U.S wass doing it to make people start to think about trying to colonise the solar system


You know this for a fact do you?


AGAIN if they were on the moon that flag would have floated what I mean by the flag is not the flagpole but the flag it self ya know the thing with the stars and strips


I know what you ment and it's simply not true, it would not have floated unless it was in a 0G environment.



p.s. thousands of particles fly to the earth but are burnt up by the atmosphere, the same thing on the moon except the is no atmosphere and those particles actually hit the moon's surface if those astroNUTS (hehehe I had to spell it that way just for fun hehe) we're actually on the moon they would have died from the particles traviling thousands of miles an hour and hitting them


There isn't a constant barrage of particles hitting everything every where. Plus I think most are pulled into Earth with it's stronger gravity well. I don't know what the statistical numbers are on getting hit by a particle in space, but i'd think it would be kind of slim.



P.S. there is no air on the moon which means no "DRAG" for example a pitched throwing a fast ball on earth and makes the ball go at 90 miles per hour well if he could use the same stregnth to throw that ball on the moon it would go aroud 500 miles an hour scince there's no drag on the moon


You got one thing right, yes there is no drag on the moon, but I don't know if you're right with the second part. If you pitched a ball that went roughly 90mph on Earth and then Pitched it again on the moon, would it not go 90mph as well? Just that it would go further and wouldn't slow down because of the lack of atmospheric drag? Does any one else know for sure?



I assure you if they we're on the moon every time they took a step the would have been traviling much faster and higher, for those who want to say thier space suits made them heavey and slow please look at the footage of how the move and you can see them using their feet just like on earth the reason they move slow is because NASA has edited the film to play in slowmotin


Again, I believe you are wrong about them being able to move faster on the moon. Yes there is a lack of drag, but that doesn't mean they move super fast. The human body has it's limits. Plus the suits were not only heavy, but rather stiff as well.

I don't know what footage you've been watching, but i've never seen the astronauts moving like they would on Earth. The film doesn't look like it's in slow motion at all to me. Only in hollywood movies does it look like that.


and the reason the hammer and feather fell at the same time is not because 1/6th on the moon it would be the same on earth exept 6 times slower for example if a hammer and feather are raised to 4 feet of the ground on earth and dropped and lets say it took the hammer 1 second to hit the ground and it took the feather 2 seconds to hit the ground if the hammer and feather was taken to the moon and raised 4 feet and dropped it would take the hammer 6 seconds to hit the moon's surface and it would take the feather 12 seconds, plain and simple like that, the real reason the NASA footage shows them hitting at the same time is because the footage is on earth AND the feather is actuall a fake feather made out of either wood or metal look at the experimental footage of the feather hammer thing here on the video scroll down to the part that says "RADIATION" and to the top right is the vidoe explaining how NASA FAKED the hammer feather thing www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...


You already forgot about drag eh? Earth has an atmosphere, thus it has drag. That's why the hammer will fall faster then the feather. The Moon has none and that's why they both hit the ground at the same time. How does having them both hit the surface at the same time show that it's on Earth? That makes no sence. I can't watch the video because I don't have the "realvideo player"

Here are some things you might want to read about the astronauts and walking on the Moon: www.clavius.org...



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 10:42 PM
link   
The reason you keep saying you don't if that would happen or not is because you don't know I've studed the moon and what it is like in space, outside of the van allen belt is 100% radiation all real life space travels we're done under the vanallen belt. 25) In 1998, the Space Shuttle flew to one of its highest altitudes ever, three hundred and fifty miles, hundreds of miles below merely the beginning of the Van Allen Radiation Belts. Inside of their shielding, superior to that which the Apollo astronauts possessed, the shuttle astronauts reported being able to "see" the radiation with their eyes closed penetrating their shielding as well as the retinas of their closed eyes. For a dental x-ray on Earth which lasts 1/100th of a second we wear a 1/4 inch lead vest. Imagine what it would be like to endure several hours of radiation that you can see with your eyes closed from hundreds of miles away with 1/8 of an inch of aluminium shielding!CNN issued the following report, "The radiation belts surrounding Earth may be more dangerous for astronauts than previously believed (like when they supposedly went through them thirty years ago to reach the Moon.) The phenomenon known as the 'Van Allen Belts' can spawn (newly discovered) 'Killer Electrons' that can dramatically affect the astronauts' health." Here's more Important info ) In 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That's the equivalent of a simple calculator. 1. Why hasn't anybody spoken out about the cover-up?
They have. Bill Kaysing got in touch with his friend, a private investigator from San Francisco called Paul Jacobs, and asked him to help him with his Apollo anomalies investigations. Mr. Jacobs agreed to go and see the head of the US Department of Geology in Washington, as he was traveling there the following week after his discussion with Mr. Keysing. He asked the geologist, 'Did you examine the Moon rocks, did they really come from the Moon.?' The geologist just laughed. Paul flew back from Washington and told Keysing that the people in high office of the American Government knew of the cover-up. Paul Jacobs and his wife died from cancer within 90 days! Lee Gelvani another friend of Kaysing, says he almost convinced informant James Irwin to confess about the cover-up. Irwin was going to ring Kaysing about it, however he died of a heart attack within 3 days. Is this evidence that a cover-up is in existence? Why didn't Russia even bother to land a cosmonaut on the Moon after the Americans beat them to it??? Many people would say that its because it was too late, but if you want to look at it like that, why didn't this apply to NASA when the Russians beat America in putting the first satellite, animal, man, woman and space station into orbit? Russia would not have thrown in the towel just because America had beaten them at one single thing in Space! During Project Apollo, six highly complex manned craft landed on the Moon, took off and returned to Earth using a relatively low level of technology. An 86% success rate. Since Apollo, twenty five simple, unmanned craft with increasingly higher levels of technology have attempted to fulfil their missions to Mars. Only seven succeeded so what do ya gotta say bout that UH? If Man were so successful at landing on the Moon over 30 years ago, why haven't we been back? In The Ride report, a report headed by Sally Ride, a former astronaut herself, an estimation was made on how long it would take to make a similar trip to the Moon today. If NASA were fully funded in 1987, they estimated that they could land men on the Moon by 2010, that's 23 years...
Since it only took 8 years from President Kennedy's announcement till the first mission, why would it take 23 years to send man back to the Moon for the 7th time? In 1999 this estimate changed. Douglas Cook, Director of the Exploration Office at Houston's Johnson Space Centre calculated that Man could go back to the Moon within 100 years.... I'm not holding my breath!!!












[edit on 4-2-2005 by SiberianTiger]

[edit on 4-2-2005 by SiberianTiger]



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 10:56 PM
link   
Dude. Take a breath once and a while.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 11:08 PM
link   
Oh, and Siberiantiger, could you please elaborate on your claim that space is 100% radiation.

Just what type of radiation are you talking about here?

What types of energy levels?

Please provide some backup for your statements.

Thanks in advnace.


[edit on 4-2-2005 by HowardRoark]


jra

posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 01:32 AM
link   
My god, use paragraphs, that was hard to read.

Space is 100% radiation? Where the hell did you get that from? Gamma rays and X-rays being the most harmful types of radiation, there intensity is actually fairly low. Yes the astronauts are not protected 100%, but the radiation isn't as bad as some have you believe. Read this for more information. www.nsbri.org...

Also, you don't need lots of lead to block out radiation from the Van Allen belts. It's proton radiation. It can be blocked decently by wood. Secondly, the shuttle is not designed to fly beyond a low Earth orbit. It is not ment to fly out past the Radiation belt. Read these link for more information about radiation in general.

www.clavius.org...
www.clavius.org...




In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That's the equivalent of a simple calculator. 1. Why hasn't anybody spoken out about the cover-up?


I can't believe that a computer from 2002 wasn't able to completely handle a simulated Moon landing. I'd like to see some links showing this and why the computer couldn't handle it. It shouldn't be that complicated. Also, Apollo had 74Kb of memory. Read this for more information about the computers they had. www.abc.net.au...

And lastly, i'd like to leave you with this quote...




"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 03:47 AM
link   
Read any Encyclopidia about the suns rays and how out side of the Van Allen Belt the suns rays are 200-300 times more powerful than on earth, this is found in most indebth books on the Sun rays out side of earth, now before I continue I want to get something straight will ALL you do believe that NASA technology has gotten much better in the last 40 years right? (I need you to answer)



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
OH I don't think you've seen actual UNedited footages like these I ask you as the moderator just read the link I provided if you still don't believe then you don't believe but it won't hurt and I promise you "You ain't neva seen nothing like this" www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...


Same crap, different URL, all of these items have been debunked. Dude, simply because some guy puts them together with fancy graphics and a slick website does not make it true
or should I say :shk:

[edit on 2/5/05 by FredT]



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 04:12 AM
link   
I can prove right now you don't know what your talking about, show right now the "so called" FAKE graphics, I challenge you right now in front of the ATS community NOW!! I will- can disprove your false claim also and I second my claim.



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 04:36 AM
link   
Here's an explaination on radiation and how it shows a faked moon walk Devil's Advocate
An Exercise in Damage Limitation
Mary Bennett

April 1st 2002, The Sky At Night (UK BBC1). If it was intentional to label all Apollo skeptics as fools, then the transmission date of this programme was impeccable. Patrick Moore played Devil's Advocate for Douglas Arnold as they sorted through various bones of contention raised by those who question the Apollo record. In this overview we will address a few of the points raised by this TV programme. To nit-pick our way through every frame would be to repeat the very detailed analysis of Apollo already documented in DARK MOON: Apollo & the Whistle-Blowers and the video What Happened on the Moon?

The 'C' rock photo. This image from Apollo 16 has a rock interestingly positioned in the foreground with a very obvious 'C' embossed upon it. Douglas Arnold stated that since this 'C' was absent in reproductions of this picture, it must be a hair that somehow got on to this one during duplication! He affirms that on the master copy duplicate (the nearest he can get to the original) and on another photo taken just before this image, there is no 'C' on this rock. Indeed we also printed in our book an example of this image in which the 'C's had been removed. None of this detracts from our contention that the photographic record was manipulated by whistle-blowers, wishing to draw attention to the problems of Apollo. In fact Arnold's justification (inadvertently no doubt) substantiates it. And could this 'hair' possibly appear twice in the same image? Because Arnold chose to ignore the fact that we query the presence of two 'C's - one embossed on the rock itself and one on the surface just in front of the rock - in the same photograph.

On the subject of radiation, Douglas Arnold claimed that the Van Allen radiation belts had posed no problem to Apollo because astronauts had been venturing into the portion of the inner belt known as the South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA) during Space Shuttle missions since 1981, and they are not exhibiting any signs of radiation damage. This statement is a very misleading answer. To use the SAA as an argument for the safety of the Apollo astronauts can only work if you do not mention all the facts.

Firstly, the inner Van Allen belt extends from about 600 miles to 3,000 miles altitude (and the upper belt extends from around 8,000 miles altitude up to a distance of 24,000 miles into space (according to NASA 1960s), or to between 55,000-64,000 miles (according to James Van Allen 1959 &1990s). Over the south Atlantic the inner belt dips down until it is only around 200 miles off the surface of the planet, the latitude and longitudinal spread of this SAA vary according to several factors, among which is the solar wind activity. The strength of its radiation increases with altitude, as does its boundaries, until it completely merges with the inner belt proper at around 600 miles from the surface of the Earth. The Apollo spacecraft would have had to travel through the entirety of the Van Allen belts, and it would have taken (according to NASA) at least an hour to accomplish a one-way trip.

The SAA accounts for most of the radiation the Space Shuttle receives, again according to NASA data. Therefore this radiation is measurable. Yet Arnold stated that since 1981 the Shuttle has been travelling through the SAA with no demonstration of damage to crew or photography - therefore there is no danger from radiation in the Van Allen belts. This is being more than economical with the facts, it is downright avaricious! Even if the destination and/or the inclination of its orbit takes the Shuttle through the SAA, not all of its orbits will necessarily be involved. Taking as an example a typical 28.5 degree equatorial orbit, only 6 out of 15 daily passes will enter the SAA. And of those 6 passes, only around 16 minutes of a 96 minute orbit would be spent within this region.

Despite this very small amount of time within the relatively minimal SAA radiation (compared to the Apollo mission time spent within the increasingly stronger belts) the instructions for Shuttle crews are to 'limit EVAs' whilst within the SAA. Not only that, but in the building of the ISS, protection against this relatively minimal SAA radiation has been taken into account, which is more than can be said for any of the Apollo craft.

Having virtually inferred that every Shuttle mission is travelling through the SAA on a regular basis, Arnold then stated that since film is sensitive to radiation the tens of thousands of images returned since 1981 from the Shuttle would have been damaged if the radiation in the SAA was an issue. As there is no sign of any such problem then there are no radiation problems! He then proceeded to lump the Moon pictures into the same argument: no visible damage = no radiation. This is not a valid argument. Nor is it a reflection of the true circumstances since it is demonstrably possible to take all the Shuttle photos when not inside the SAA. These perfect Shuttle images (and those allegedly taken around the Moon) demonstrate that they were not taken within an environment where radiation could damage them. Finally, while Arnold made this point about the safety of the SAA, the image of an astronaut working outside the Shuttle was flashed onto our TV screens - yet another manipulation of the truth.

Somewhat obviously, the further up into the SAA you travel, the worse it gets in terms of radiation. As far as the ISS is concerned, NASA currently considers that 23 minutes of any orbit going within the SAA is acceptable exposure time to radiation. Not only because the ISS is somewhat protected from this radiation but also because the remaining seventy odd minutes of orbit apparently permits the human body to recuperate from the radiation effects inflicted upon it whilst in the SAA! How then would it have been OK for Apollo astronauts to travel through the belts for up to at least 60 minutes at a go, in totally unprotected craft, with no recuperation time? Beyond the belts, as we know, the dangers from radiation do not disappear.

Douglas stated that the Apollo astronauts fortunately did not encounter any solar flares. If they had done so, he acknowledged that they would have been at varying degrees of risk. These solar particle events (SPEs) cannot be predicted with any accuracy, and if they had encountered unexpected activity, where would the Apollo astronauts have gone to find safe shelter during an Apollo mission? The question we must all ask is how, 34 years ago, was NASA able to predict what is still unpredictable today? This question was not addressed.

Star fields. Arnold is correct in saying that the stars would not be seen around the Moon since the photographs taken were not exposed for the background stars - but most Apollo skeptics do not dispute this. They ask 'Why isn't there such a photograph?' They consider that from the point of view of an exploration of a totally new environment, the sheer absence from the public record of even one single colour time exposure of the stars alone (rather than as part of the lunar landscape) is questionable. Imagine a headline in the press: The Sky at Night-as seen from the Moon.

When dealing with shadows, Arnold ignored many of the serious shadow anomalies discussed in both the book and video. And even when selecting a picture with rocks in the foreground and LM in the background, he chose to ignore the rocks located to the left of the image that also have shadows diverging from that of the LM, yet are not on any mounds.

When tackling the question of how detail is visible in the pitch-black shadow side of the LM standing on the lunar surface, Arnold, by way of demonstration, held up a white card vertically and said that a reflector would have filled-in images and 'teased out' the detail. This was a wholly inadequate answer as to how the shadow side of the LM was filled-in with an amount of light far greater than could be achieved with a simple reflector.

We note that they had the intelligence not to consider as valid light reflectors 'earthshine', or the gold Mylar on the LM, or the surface of the Moon itself. (The illuminated surface would have been horizontal, not vertical as in Arnold's white card, and again ineffective in filling-in shadow detail.) No, instead Douglas Arnold claimed that an astronaut himself probably acted as a reflector when, for example, a fellow astronaut was descending the ladder or standing in the black shadow of the LM. However, as analysis of the 'live' TV coverage of Apollo 11 has shown, when Aldrin descended the ladder, at times Armstrong himself was also standing in the shade and therefore totally unable to act as a reflector. Moreover, Arnold did not in any way address the 'hot spots' of light on the side of the LM that was in total shadow.

Using tiny models in a studio (that benefited from the overall studio lighting) was not a valid demonstration for this question as to how shadow sides of astronauts were illuminated or filled-in. The toy astronauts were somewhat smaller than the 'reflector' created by Douglas Arnold's own hand. Yet, even with this 'giant pink reflector', in order to obtain a very minimal alteration to the amount of light hitting the astronaut standing in the 'shadow', Arnold was virtually obliged to have them hug each other! No pictures that we have seen were taken at such a close proximity as demonstrated by Arnold. In fact it would be more accurate to say that by moving his 'sunlit man' back and forth in front of 'shadow man', in order to show how much light was being added, what we really saw was how 'sunlit man' partially blocked the ambient studio lighting!

Douglas Arnold considered the Apollo photographic record 'marvellous', 'magical' and "really literally and metaphorically out of this world" - surely a metaphorical photograph is the representation of an event, not the actual event itself?

As for the Apollo 13 landing site being in darkness, Arnold has either misunderstood the point we have made or attempted to avoid it by majoring on the date of landing. For the record, and according to astronaut Jim Lovell, the Apollo 13 crew trained for a mission that would see them sitting in the LM on the lunar surface about 100 hours after launch: At 19:00 hours on 15th April Houston Time.

We have emphasised the fact that the Fra Mauro landing site was in darkness for the entire time that this allegedly stricken Apollo 13 crew were supposed to be out around the Moon (and until they were 19,000 miles away from it on their return trip). Because despite this fact, in the officially sanctioned film Apollo 13, the astronaut/actors stated that they could see their landing site. Then they spotted other lunar landmarks and gave totally incorrect descriptions of the lunar terrain as they progressed around the Moon. Our question was - and still is - why was it necessary to turn the alleged historical facts of the Apollo 13 mission into blatant nonsense? Especially since the director Ron Howard is on record as having stated that in the making of Apollo 13: " . . . it required no 'Hollywoodizing' . . . all you had to do was fall back on historical fact."

Moore summed up the programme with the words: "Well I think that no one will really now take it [the Apollo hoax theory] seriously". Despite this apparent satisfaction with the results of their efforts - it was remarkable that both participants made major 'fluffs' - always at points in their scripts when they were justifying the 'reality' of Apollo. Even with the help of carefully selected words and images, this attempt at validating the Apollo landings ultimately turned out to be a woefully inadequate exercise in damage limitation. It was certainly foolish to think that such complex issues could be adequately dealt with in a twenty-minute time slot, even if it was 1st April.

Mary Bennett 03/04/2002

From Apollo to the Future
Many Bennett & David S Percy

We hardly like to say "you've heard it all before - from us," but the new NASA administrator, Sean O'Keefe has recently told audiences what we related to you back in 1999 within the pages of DARK MOON: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers.

In a significant speech delivered in Washington on 26 March 2002 O'Keefe told his audience of aerospace professionals that NASA faced two key technical obstacles in the exploration of space:

1) Power and propulsion in deep space.
2) The hazardous radiation environment for humans travelling beyond Earth.

Radiation was referred to as "one of the greatest challenges" faced by NASA, and yet was only number two on O'Keefe's wish list! And given the magnitude of that second challenge, then imagine what needs to be done for the first: that of creating long haul space craft capable of both undertaking the required trip and protecting passengers against problem number two - radiation. O'Keefe stated that NASA's efforts should now go into R&D in these two key areas, rather than in targeting a destination such as the Moon or Mars.

Referring to the Apollo Moon missions he said its true success was not the choice of a destination but more the "demonstration of what we could do" (emphasis added). He also stated that if NASA couldn't conquer the problems he had set out, then "we are engaging in fantasy".
We had already said that too, but maybe he didn't mean it quite as we did - or did he? And we hope he doesn't mean it the way we think he might if that R&D does not work out!

Finally, since NASA itself is stating that radiation in deep space is more than twice the levels measured on the ISS, we should add that The Sky at Night team might like to refer to base before making assertions that turn out to be wrong. Yes, we know, we have already said that elsewhere.

In fact, in order not repeat ourselves any further, we think that this would be a good moment to take a breather - if the Administrator of NASA can acknowledge the major problems faced by space travel (and these problems haven't in any way changed since Apollo - missions that had variations of problem one and all of problem two as their obstacles) then surely Apollo skeptics and believers can make peace with each other and recognise that we have all turned a corner.

Isn't it now time for all of us to get on with the future? To get behind those trying to seek the appropriate solutions to these technical obstacles that are hindering the true exploration of space by human beings?



Mary Bennett & David S Percy

SOURCE: Astronomy Now May 2002
See also Aulis News item 12 April 2002



















[edit on 5-2-2005 by SiberianTiger]



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
I can prove right now you don't know what your talking about, show right now the "so called" FAKE graphics, I challenge you right now in front of the ATS community NOW!! I will- can disprove your false claim also and I second my claim.


Please do so meanwhile please feel free to deny ignorance here:

www.badastronomy.com...


jra

posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 01:35 PM
link   
I don't have the time to go through your rather long post (which you should also post a link to the source you copied and pasted it from) and discuss every part of it, but I do want to focus on this part here:



Douglas stated that the Apollo astronauts fortunately did not encounter any solar flares. If they had done so, he acknowledged that they would have been at varying degrees of risk. These solar particle events (SPEs) cannot be predicted with any accuracy, and if they had encountered unexpected activity, where would the Apollo astronauts have gone to find safe shelter during an Apollo mission? The question we must all ask is how, 34 years ago, was NASA able to predict what is still unpredictable today? This question was not addressed.


No, SPE's cannot be predicted accuratly, but no one can predict the weather on Earth accurately either really. But SPE's don't just suddenly happen out of the blue. They do monitor the weather on the sun and they can make predictions as to when one might happen.

Please read this link for more information about the Sun. www.clavius.org...



A major solar event doesn't just cut loose without warning. It is possible to observe the "weather" on the sun and predict when a major event will occur. And this is what was done on the Apollo missions. To be sure, the missions were planned months in advance and the forecasting was not that farsighted. But they would have had enough warning to call off the mission should a solar event have started boiling up from the depths of the sun.

Statistical probability was the main protection for the Apollo crews. The forecasters would have been able to rule out major events during the first few days of the mission. And so out of a nine-day mission that might only leave five or six days of vulnerability. The chances of a major solar event occurring within a given five-day period is quite remote, even during periods of exceptional activity.


I also urge you to read the other links that I had posted before, if you have not done so already. I've read your posts and links, it's only fair that you read mine. And please point out anything you find wrong with them so we can discuss them. I'll be gone be gone all next week starting tonight, so that should give you plenty of time to read those pages.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join