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.

 

Nvidia Debunks Conspiracy Theories About Moon Landing

page: 5
28
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

As a video game fanatic, soon as I saw Nvidia had to read up!




posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 11:41 PM
link   
its just too bad we "accidentally" threw away the technology to get there or we could have went again and agian beings i have more technology in my pocket then they did back then , but yea i totally believe we went to the moon



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 11:44 PM
link   
a reply to: truthnlies

What purpose would again landing 2 men on the Moon for a few days serve? Considering the costs and risk involved?

edit on 8/21/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 04:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: truthnlies
its just too bad we "accidentally" threw away the technology to get there or we could have went again and agian beings i have more technology in my pocket then they did back then , but yea i totally believe we went to the moon

We did go up there again and again, six times in fact. After public interest and the funding went down, it was decided to focus on developing the Space Shuttle program and Skylab.

Trust me, we would definitely not want to use the same technology today!

The Computer for the Apollo Program Used Rope Memory Woven by Little Old Ladies

The LM was more like a glorified coke can. www.quora.com...



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 08:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
If you don't think whether or not you've looked at the most original scans affects your point, then you are completely missing my point that it matters a great deal.


That's not what I said at all, I said MAYBE I didn't look at the originals, that weren't adjusted in any way, but every image that I've seen, I've look at directly on the NASA website. I wasn't missing your point at all, you misinterpreted me.


I think if you're going to raise your concerns it's only fair if you show some examples, otherwise I don't get your point in mentioning your concerns at all.

I cited some concerns, and I don't care enough to take the time to sift through the images to find them at this point in my life. If you don't get my reasoning of mentioning it, I'm at peace with that. Disregard at will.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: wildespace

Supposedly when Nixon shut down Apollo programs ordered that the jigs and tooling for SATURN V be destroyed
so that could not be restarted



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: firerescue

Citation please.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 02:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: wildespace

Supposedly when Nixon shut down Apollo programs ordered that the jigs and tooling for SATURN V be destroyed
so that could not be restarted



That is a total fabrication.

Post-Apollo missions were in the development stages since 1965, budget cuts curtailed those plans, and indeed cut short the moon landing program itself. By the end of Apollo, plans for a new Heavy Lift system was already well underway. America decided to put its money into LEO. Although a Saturn-Shuttle proposal was put forward (and may have prevented the Challenger disaster) it was seen as too costly and lost out. So if no more Saturns were going to be built why would the manufacturing plants be kept ready to build them? They had other stuff to build for the Shuttle system.

Nixon didn't order the jigs to be destroyed, the factories just got retooled so they could be used to build other stuff.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 06:13 AM
link   
I watched this the other week. Hardly a debunk when its all computer generated and nvidia have never been the the moon.. just speculation.

Look we can make the ground shine to reflect light .

Well done for trying. Was interesting though



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 07:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
That's not what I said at all, I said MAYBE I didn't look at the originals...
I cited some concerns, and I don't care enough to take the time to sift through the images to find them at this point in my life.
I guess we'll never know what you were really looking at then with no examples, but hopefully you can understand in a science forum that when you say some NASA photos don't pass muster, people are going to be curious to know what you're talking about. NASA has photos they doctored on their own website by the way, they just aren't labeled as originals. For their "doctored" photos, the amount of explanation provided about how the image was doctored and why varies.

You don't have to back up your statement, but as you say, we then have little choice but to assign credibility to your statement which is in proportion to the amount of evidence supporting it, which you have chosen to be zero. If you're ok with that so am I.



originally posted by: lSkrewloosel
just speculation.
Nothing could be further from the truth...it's not "just speculation", it's a model. Is the model a perfect representation of reality? No model is, but models can be very close if the inputs are not speculative but fact and measurement based which the inputs to this model are. What are the inputs and are they known or speculative?

1. Light output from the sun: known, not speculated.
2. Albedo or reflectivity of the moon's surface: known. It's about 12% on average though Apollo 8 made some measurements that are related to what Nvidia is talking about when they note the albedo actually varies with respect to orientation of the light source, and Nvidia even accounted for that.
3. Surfaces of the lunar lander, and other man-made objects: known.
4. Brightness of stars: known

Since these inputs comprise the model and they are known, it's not "just speculation".

It's interesting that one of Nvidia's directors apparently had some doubts about how brightly lit Buzz Aldrin was in that scene, and it sounds like a number of nvidia folks were surprised by how much light Neil Armstrong's space suit reflected into the scene. They didn't have to speculate about that either, it's about 85% reflective.

www.engadget.com...

"It turns out there is a lot of information about the astronomical bodies floating out there in space," he explains. "Starting with the sun. The sun itself is 128,500 lux -- that's lumens per square meter - but it turns out the moon is a crappy reflector of light." Daly discovered that the moon is only 12-percent reflective, and absorbs most of the sunlight hitting it. On the other hand, 12-percent of 128,500 lux is quite a lot. "It's the equivalent to ten 100-watt lightbulbs per square meter of light bouncing off the moon." More than enough make Aldrin visible under the lander's shadow.

While this exercise showed that the moon was reflective enough to highlight Aldrin, something was still wrong. Daly noticed that the astronaut's side wasn't lit the same in NVIDIA's simulation as it was in NASA's photograph, but he wasn't sure why. "A couple of people really into the moon landing told me, 'by the way, you should take into account Neil Armstrong and the light coming off of him.' At first I was like, yeah, whatever -- the sun is doing all the work -- something the size of a guy in a space suit isn't going to contribute much light." He quickly learned his assumption was wrong: the material on the outside of the astronaut's suits is 85-percent reflective. "Sure enough, we put him in there, adjusted the reflectivity of his suit, put him in the position where the camera would be... and it contributed another 10% or so of light to the side of Buzz Aldrin."


Maybe the model could be 5 or 10% off either way due to uncertainties in local albedo etc, but you can see the difference of a 10% change in illumination when they add or subtract the light coming from Neil Armstrong's suit which I find noticeable but not all that dramatic. Even if this model like all other models is not perfect, it does appear to be very close to the picture though I am sure the moon landings weren't faked so I don't think it's a problem to compare the model to the photo to see how accurate the model is. I suppose a conspiracy theorist might not agree with the photo comparison, but I would still have to ask him, "what part of the model do you think is wrong and why do you think so?" If he thinks he's got better data than nvidia used in their model, let's see it and evaluate it.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 07:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

It's interesting that one of Nvidia's directors apparently had some doubts about how brightly lit Buzz Aldrin was in that scene, and it sounds like a number of nvidia folks were surprised by how much light Neil Armstrong's space suit reflected into the scene. They didn't have to speculate about that either, it's about 85% reflective.



There is a particularly poisonous anti-Apollo troll on youtube who claims that all shadows are painted in, and you can tell that because when you adjust brightness levels nothing is revealed on the ground. I found several cases that proved him wrong completely. All those shadows were close to the photographer - in other words close to a very reflective white suit.


(post by captainpudding removed for a manners violation)
(post by captainpudding removed for a manners violation)

posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZombieZygote



Even current astronauts admit that they need to figure out a way to get humans safely past the Van Allen Radiation Belts before they can leave low Earth orbit.


Please provide a source for this claim



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 11:07 PM
link   
a reply to: captainpudding

Your tin foil flat earther moon hoaxer doent have credible source

All they do id mindlessly parrot the mantra that space travel is impossible because of the Van Allen radiation belts,
same as 9/11 loons who repeat the "controlled demolition" trope without understanding anything about the building
construction or why the building could not have been wired the way they claim

Don't expect a coherent explanation or logic from such fools



posted on Aug, 26 2018 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: firerescue

I'm about 99% sure their claim was that since they have to test new equipment (Orion) it means the old stuff didn't work (Apollo) the same way we can prove the Model T was fake because Ford tests its new models before they put them on sale. It's been 50 years and ignorance and lies is still all they're capable of. I agree with you, I still laugh at the 9/11 people when they try and claim the official story is that the buildings melted.



posted on Aug, 27 2018 @ 12:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: captainpudding
a reply to: firerescue

I'm about 99% sure their claim was that since they have to test new equipment (Orion) it means the old stuff didn't work (Apollo) the same way we can prove the Model T was fake because Ford tests its new models before they put them on sale. It's been 50 years and ignorance and lies is still all they're capable of. I agree with you, I still laugh at the 9/11 people when they try and claim the official story is that the buildings melted.
Yes, it was NASA engineer Kelly Smith rather than an astronaut, who talked about the need to test Orion electronics in the Van Allen belt. However your reference to the auto industry vastly understates the changes in the electronics industry where auto measures are somewhat stagnant relative to measures of progress in electronics. Intel mentioned this example to highlight the contrast:


If there were a Moore’s Law in the car industry, you could drive to the sun on a gallon of gas

That would be 93 million miles to the gallon by the way.

I think the Apollo 11 computer had 2 KB of memory which had a rather hardy design as far as radiation is concerned, but now a 2 GB memory module is not impressive in consumer electronics, which is a million times more memory, and the memory transistors are probably over a million times smaller. So the point is that electronics today are nothing like electronics in 1969; they have advanced dramatically more than anything in the auto industry or most other industries for that matter, and because the components have shrunk so much they might be more affected by small radiation particles.

After Kelly Smith talks about the need for electronics testing, he then says the testing will help ensure astronauts can safely travel through that region of space, which the conspiracy theorists want to interpret to mean he's talking about radiation killing the astronauts (which it might if they stayed in the Van Allen belts for many days instead of flying through them in less than an hour which shouldn't be expose them to much more radiation than getting an X-ray at the doctor's office). From his context of talking about testing the electronics, it seems apparent to me that the main inference of his statement was that if the electronics got fried by radiation in the Van Allen belts, that could negatively impact astronaut safety. One of the conspiracy theorist clips on youtube actually edits out Kelly Smith's discussion of the electronics testing, to dishonestly destroy the context of his statements.



posted on Aug, 27 2018 @ 07:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Apollo era electronics used iron ferrite rings for central core memory

Today electronics use millions of microscopic transistors etched in piece of silicon size of thumb

Problem with that is a high energy particle hitting the chip can scramble if not destroy the chip

There are radiation hardened CMOS electronics which are designed to resist radiation

Such chips are used in military electronics and in such things as communication satellites which must
function in a high radiation environment for years



posted on Aug, 27 2018 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: rhynouk




What does annoy me is people who state FACT that we DID go to the moon. They know as much as the rest of us.


well speak for yourself,

I believe there is a ATS member in this very thread that has claimed in the past to be taken to the moon.

They know for a fact we have been.




Either way, it's a fascinating topic to talk about.





posted on Aug, 27 2018 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

It's slightly telling about moon hoaxers when their strongest argument in the past ten years seems to be based on them not understanding concepts introduced in an educational program designed for children.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join