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.

 

Lunar landing hoax, facts that prove we haven't left the earths atmosphere.

page: 4
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2018 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: maxzen2004

The one thing i don't understand is how the lunar module does not appear to have created any kind of significant blast creator or kicked up debris when it took off on its return journey to the command module in orbit of the Moon?

Don't misunderstand me through i believe we went to the Moon, and that the answer probably lies in lack of significant atmosphere/properties of the landing area.

Just would like to have it better explained.
edit on 9-9-2018 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 9 2018 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: ZIPMATT

" no back up " pfffft


Here's a letter where he re-buffed the nonsense on the Fox news documentary .



And here's a postcard from an autograph site with his autograph to compare .





And here's a GIF of aliens abducting cows!! ( completely on topic )





Edit:

What the hell is wrong with my AV ? I've spent two days battling it .
edit on 9-9-2018 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-9-2018 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-9-2018 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2018 @ 06:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: maxzen2004

The one thing i don't understand is how the lunar module does not appear to have created any kind of significant blast creator or kicked up debris when it took off on its return journey to the command module in orbit of the Moon?

Don't misunderstand me through i believe we went to the Moon, and that the answer probably lies in lack of significant atmosphere/properties of the landing area.

Just would like to have it better explained.


I think you are asking the wrong question. It should be why was there a blast crater in so little gravity



posted on Sep, 9 2018 @ 06:51 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 9 2018 @ 06:52 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 9 2018 @ 06:53 PM
link   
My favorite Apollo JPG is the 1987 monument to Luka the space dog.




Probably in the planter now....



posted on Sep, 9 2018 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Robbo2006

Well with very little gravity, around 16.6% that on Earth's surface, less thrust is obviously required to return the module to orbit.

Would the properties of the blast creator not be directly linked to how close the thrusters were to the surface of the moon and how much thrust they produced?

I mean the astronauts kick up dust and debris and they were only walking/jumping around, gravity or lack of does not seem to have affected them kicking up dust and leaving footprints.
edit on 9-9-2018 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2018 @ 06:55 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 9 2018 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

Been explain before , but will go over it again

LEM descent engine was throttleable at power setting from 10-90% power rating (full power 10, 500 lbs)

At landing the LEM engine was throttled back to low power setting and LEM was travelling little faster than walking speed

At bottom of landing feet were 5 ft long break away probes to signal when touched surface. Once get indication
that touched surface would shut engine down

Also in vacuum the exhaust gases would quickly spread out once exiting exhaust nozzle as there is nothing to contain them

Here is video from camera left on moon rover showing liftoff of ascent section of Apollo 17 LEM

www.youtube.com...



edit on 9-9-2018 by firerescue because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2018 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: firerescue

Im talking about the return journey through and not the landing.

"Also in vacuum the exhaust gases would quickly spread out once exiting exhaust nozzle as there is nothing to contain them"

That seems to be a better explanation.



posted on Sep, 9 2018 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: maxzen2004




They would have melted

at 0°C they would have melted?



Another lie in plain sight, the live transmission from the moon is impossible with 20 watts

A one milliwatt cat toy laser can be seen from 10-12 miles away.



posted on Sep, 9 2018 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

added video of liftoff from ascent stage of Apollo 17 LEM

www.youtube.com...

Apollo 16

www.youtube.com...



posted on Sep, 9 2018 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Absolute BALLS!!!
Biggest BOLLOCKS,EVER!!! EVER!!! LOL



posted on Sep, 9 2018 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: fiverx313
i'm posting this from the moon right now, therefore your argument is invalid


Flat Moon or Cheese Moon?

#MoonsMatter



posted on Sep, 9 2018 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: firerescue

The Apollo 16 takeoff seems to show plenty of debris and dust kicking around.

That's a great example cheers.


Certainly more in line with what people would expect to see pertaining to a rocket takeoff.

Then again what people expect to see is down to our perception of what we would expect to witness back here on Earth.
edit on 9-9-2018 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2018 @ 07:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: maxzen2004
Yes,

I picked the one with the highest melting point but still short of 1700 degree C.

a reply to: Nickn3


It lookes like the outer layer is composed of inconcl nickel alloy mesh, insulated by up to 25 layers of additional material. You can view the plans at the link below.
www.hq.nasa.gov...



posted on Sep, 9 2018 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: ZIPMATT

I said the van Allen radiation belt were no obstacle.

You said .....




No back -up
just a personal insult
just another example as proof of fact


Then I showed you overwhelming evidence and lo and behold we're on to the next subject.

( nobody saw that coming )

I'll tell you what. I'm not up to speed on your theory. I hopped in late on this thread.

Do you want to give me the rundown?

BTW you could've at least chuckled at the cow thing . Lol









posted on Sep, 9 2018 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake




The Apollo 16 takeoff seems to show plenty of debris and dust kicking around.


Lot of the debris is result of explosive bolts firing to separate the ascent section from the descent stage

Also on moon the dust gets everywhere , astronauts would track it inside where caused respiratory problems



posted on Sep, 9 2018 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: firerescue

Yes the dust does seem to be an issue, then again its one of the reasons we will return, well the abundance of Helium-3 embedded in the upper layer of regolith anyway.
edit on 9-9-2018 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2018 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

Be surprised at how little power spacecraft need to transmit back to earth

Early EXPLORER and VANGUARD satellites used transmitters of only 10 milliwatts



Data from the scientific instruments was transmitted to the ground by two antennas. A 60 milliwatt transmitter fed a dipole antenna consisting of two fiberglass slot antennas in the body of the satellite operating on 108.03 MHz, and four flexible whips forming a turnstile antenna were fed by a 10 milliwatt transmitter operating on 108.00 MHz.





A 10 mW transmitter, powered by a mercury battery, on the 108 MHz band used for International Geophysical Year (IGY) scientific satellites, and a 5 mW, 108.03 MHz transmitter powered by six solar cells were used as part of a radio phase-comparison angle-tracking system.



Early lunar probes had transmitters of 100 milliwatt power







 
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join