An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

Just for arguments sake, you do know that helicopters can fly in 3 dimensions right?

Originally posted by skeptic-friend

THIS POWERFUL COMPUTER WAS REALLY NO USE, ARMSTRONG FLEW LEM LIKE A HELICOPTER.

The AGC (guidance computer) DID work...in your 7-post verbatim copying of wikipedia, it was stated that the AGC excecuted a fail-safe that allowed it to shed low priority tasks to allow it to concentrate on the overflow of radar data. By ignoring some tasks, it was able to handle the radar data, and was thus useful to the LEM pilot.

And what is the correlation between a helicopter and the LEM? I don't understand what you are getting at. A Helicopter uses airfoil-shaped rotors to provide lift--each rotor working like an airplane's wing. The LEM used rockets. What's the correlation?

[edit on 9/11/2007 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


I believe he erroneously thinks it is impossible to control a vehicle where the thrust is located below the center of gravity, rather than above it (as in a helicopter).

If a machine can land on the moon, so can a person in that machine.

Not necessarily! So, that's NO PROOF of the moonlandings!

And skepticfriend says no machine can land on the moon so the mirrors can't be there but they are sooooo.... believe either skepticfriend and disbelieve there are reflectors on the moon or disbelieve skepticfriend and believe the ARE reflectors on the moon. Again the reflectors are verifiable.

I don't know Skepticfriend. I was talking to you, because you had been ignored about this question, remember?!

I don't know if there really are reflectors on the moon. I never saw a big moonbeam from the moon back to the earth! Do you? I would love to see that!

What about Michael Collins? Don't you have an answer on that?

reply to post by nataylor


I suppose that could be his argument (although - as you said - an erroneous one).

If a thruster below the center of gravity is impossible to control, then how does a Harrier Jet work, and how did the Viking Lander work, and how will the Mars Phoenix Lander work...don't those all use thrusters located under the craft's center of gravity? Or does skeptic-friend doubt the existance of Harrier jets and the Viking Landers.

And what about the LM training vehicle? Sure, it failed twice, but it was also successfully flown on many other occassions--including flights that took place in front of the press and other witnesses.

...and, by the way, the LM training vehicle was never designed to be the LM test vehicle -- it was only designed to train the astronauts how to control a vehicle with similar flight characteristcs as the actual LM designed to land on the moon, which is a completely different thing. The LM itself was successfully test flown in space on Apollo 9 and successfully tested 8 miles above the Moon during Apollo 10.

and skeptic-friend...

You do realize that the LEM had 16 additional Reaction Control System Thrusters (which were located closer to the top of the center of gravity), and were computer controlled to fire in short bursts to allow for attidude control (yes, the attidude control computer software worked fine).

So while a single gimbaled thruster did the bulk of the work, it was not the only thruster that was involved with attitude control. Similar Attitude Control Thusters can also be seen firing on the videos of the LM training vehicle.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
and skeptic-friend...

You do realize that the LEM had 16 additional Reaction Control System Thrusters (which were located closer to the top of the center of gravity), and were computer controlled to fire in short bursts to allow for attidude control (yes, the attidude control computer software worked fine).

So while a single gimbaled thruster did the bulk of the work, it was not the only thruster that was involved with attitude control. Similar Attitude Control Thusters can also be seen firing on the videos of the LM training vehicle.

Just for the reasons you said - Apollo computer guidance system (ACGS) had to do a great work - it was impossible for Armstrong to substitute that computer flying MANUALLY LEM as if it was a helicopter.

It was not absolutely a helicopter thsusted from the top.

A rocket thrusted from the bottom can't land vertically going backwards.

NASA jokers sent Viking Lander to Mars and didn't test it on the Earth.

Then they are only buffoons that want to swindle gullible people.

I will get you some info regarding michael collins just been busy, and it requires a bit of research. I'm not ignoring you.

On a side note, I'm just curious but if the apollo rockets didn't go to the moon, where did they go when they lifted off?

Thanks. Again, I'll get back to you soon.

also, are you saying that the only reason a helicopter can fly is because the rotor is above the vehicle?

Originally posted by jfj123
also, are you saying that the only reason a helicopter can fly is because the rotor is above the vehicle?

No, it's not the only reason.

The other very important reason is that the helicopter flies in a fluid: air.

However...


Look at this video:

video.google.com...

Characters:

Rob Manning: Entry, Descent & Landing in animated 3D cartoon.

Jessica Collisson: Flight in the animated 3D cartoon Director.

Roger Cooper, Donald Haggard, Clarissa Griffin, Marlon Bates, Claude Austin, Arthur Fenton, Edmond Davies, Lewis Ervine, Karen Malloch, Harold Marshall, Louis Porter, Fergus Cotton, Ludwig Wolsey, George Lyndsay, Herman Madison, Victor Adams, Thomas Mackenzie, Sean Richards, Ronald Robbins, Michael Ellis, Dylan Jordan, Anne Sullivan: Walking-on parts, buffoons that simulate to exult.

Spirit & Opportunity: Characters made by Softimage.

Pete Theisinger: 3D animated cartoon Project Manager.

Roger Cooper, Donald Haggard, Clarissa Griffin, Marlon Bates, Claude Austin, Arthur Fenton, Edmond Davies, Lewis Ervine, Karen Malloch, Harold Marshall, Louis Porter, Fergus Cotton, Ludwig Wolsey, George Lyndsay, Herman Madison, Victor Adams, Thomas Mackenzie, Sean Richards, Ronald Robbins, Michael Ellis, Dylan Jordan, Anne Sullivan: Walking-on parts, buffoons that simulate to exult.

Steve Squyres: Principal Liar.

Joy Crisp: Ironmonger's Scientist.



Thanks to AVID Softimage 3D Software.



But...

What is the last part of the video? Is Mars a little balloon?

Very strange that real movie in black and white. Where are nuances, color graduations, shades, tones of that incredible Mars atmosphere?



However…

I like above all the enthusiasm and excitement of THE 3 HEROES OF THE MOON:

www.youtube.com...

I LOVE SO MUCH ALDRIN'S EUPHORIA.


















[edit on 13-9-2007 by skeptic-friend]

skepticfriend,
I'm really not sure what you're talking about.
I watched the video. Thanks for posting it ! It's really neat to see.

I watched the video and noticed they used computer animation. Is that what you have a problem with??? If so why?

NASA may want to see visually what the plan is and keep in mind, they do want to "sell" these projects to government and public interests.

Assuming you are saying that since they used computer animation, it's all fake, please keep in mind that the auto industry uses computer animation all the time before making a new line of cars and to sell the new line. Does that mean that cars don't exist??

However…
I like above all the enthusiasm and excitement of THE 3 HEROES OF THE MOON:
www.youtube.com...
I LOVE SO MUCH ALDRIN'S EUPHORIA.

Since you post this on EVERY one of your posts, you obviously put a lot of stock in this as evidence against the moon landing. Logically, you must also believe in the moon landing if you see or hear footage of these astronauts being excited.

OK so heres a plane that can take off and land vertically so we know it is possible to take off and land using thrusters.

video.google.com...

here is a model harrier jet doing a vertical take off and landing.
Weird how a hobbiest can make a model do a Vertical take off and landing but NASA can't whip something up that'll work.

here's the link to the model
video.google.com...

Don't forget the Delta Clipper:

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by jfj123
OK so heres a plane that can take off and land vertically so we know it is possible to take off and land using thrusters.

video.google.com...

www.kokhavivpublications.com...

Israels' Fighter of the Future the F-35
IDF Spokesperson

9 December 2002

A landmark project to develop the future fighter aircraft of the 21st Centruy, the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) began in 1994, in the United States. The project got underway after the Joint Chiefs of Staff came together and reached a momentous decision; to develop a fighter aircraft that would be the flagship for all three U.S. services. In 1997, two American aeronautics companies, Lockheed Martin and Boeing received $700 million each to develop two prototypes for the U.S. military. In October 2001, after a grueling test, the F-35, developed by Lockheed Martin, was chosen as the aircraft to be developed, and from there rolled onto the final production stages. The contract, which was signed with Lockheed Martin, is estimated to be worth $200 million, and was expected to take 10 years before the plane becomes operational at the beginning of 2010.

"... the F-35, developed by Lockheed Martin, was chosen as the aircraft to be developed...

... and was expected to take 10 years before the plane becomes operational at the beginning of 2010".

Then that video is another fake movie.

F-35 still today - 2007 - is not operational.





DELTA CLIPPER?

video.google.com...

reply to post by skeptic-friend


The video isnt a fake at all

What about the Harrier? Directional Jest making verical take off and landing.

British of course

Originally posted by Chorlton
...

What about the Harrier? Directional Jets making vertical take off and landing.

British of course

www.pulitzer.org...

"I would resist with all my moral fiber the idea that we would willingly or knowingly try to bring aboard a program -- V-22 or anything else -- and so fall in love with the program that we would put people at risk to ride in those vehicles," Marine Corps Commandant James L. Jones said at a military forum last year.

If the Harrier's problems have lingered, some current and former Marine officials contend, it is because the Navy has once again let them down. As the financial overseer of the corps' aviation program, the Navy hasn't always provided enough money to maintain a plane flown only by the Marines, they say -- a charge Navy officials vigorously dispute.

Undaunted by past failures, the Marines have pressed on. Some survivors of Harrier pilots say that is as it should be, that their husbands and sons knew the risks but believed in the cause. Others are less forgiving, convinced that the corps has been more faithful to its vertical vision than to its pilots. They say the corps has taken unreasonable risks with the lives of their loved ones.

"They deserve the best chance we can give them if we're going to stick them out there to stretch the envelope," said Jim E. Dale, whose brother, 1st Lt. Kerry D. Dale, died in a 1988 Harrier crash after his flaps jammed. "They deserve honesty. They deserve integrity. They deserve the very principles from the corps that we think the corps stands for."

Many of the Harrier's victims left behind adoring wives and children too young to comprehend. Long after their deaths, their parents grasp for memories, adorning their sons' bedrooms with ceremonial swords, plastic airplane models and flags folded neatly into tri-corner boxes.

reply to post by skeptic-friend



So you obviously missed the videos of UK Harriers fighting in the Falklands doing verticaltake offs and landings from Aircraft carriers

Originally posted by skeptic-friend
DELTA CLIPPER?

video.google.com...

Because one landing gear fails, it somehow means VTOL is impossible? Try and address the relevant points.