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.

 

An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

page: 107
29
<< 104  105  106    108  109  110 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic-friend

What?



GEOLOGIST: Wow! this is an interesting sample. Where exactly did you find this rock?
ASTRONAUT: Nearest to LEM!

Which was the longest trip of Moon buggy?

20 miles?


I can walk around my neighborhood and find a bunch of different geological eras present...There's some shale over here, and some ganite over there, most likely formed in different geological eras and by different processes.

I would think that a geologist would want to know exactly what crater or plain a certain rock came from if he was trying to decipher the geology of the Moon. An astronaut saying "I found this rock somewhere within a 10 km radius of the landing site" would be basically useless information. What would the point be of exploring the Moon if nobody knows exactly what part of the Moon was explored?

...and why would you want the astronauts to be required to "follow their own tracks" back to the LEM when they could have this very simple navigation device (directional gyroscope connected to the odometer). If NASA decided that "follow the tracks" was the only way to navigate back to the LEM, then they certainly would be "buffoons", as you like to call them.




posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 03:38 PM
link   
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Go to pag. 7



C:
AFT CHASSIS UNFOLDS
REAR WHEELS UNFOLD
AFT CHASSIS LOCKS IN POSITION

What?

Explain please how rear wheels connect with transmission axle.




posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 03:50 PM
link   
my only thought about the moon landings is they didnt find any usefull minerals such as gold diamonds tin cooper etc.....because im sure if they did we would be rapeing the moon for all its worth

just my 2 pennys



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic-friend
 


IF and thats a bif if you bothered to read it - it would become blindingly obvious that each wheel as an independant hub mounted electric motor

question is - why did you not discover this yourself , its right there in black and white :


Each wheel had its own electric drive, a DC series wound 0.25 hp motor capable of 10,000 rpm, attached to the wheel via an 80:1 harmonic drive, and a mechanical brake unit


your trollish pseudo stupidity is getting tiresome



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a moon landing could easily be faked. i heard ( may not be true) that Disney provided the studio for the filming and the set is still standing at disney world. the reason for the fake is simple, we had to beat russia into space. when we couldn't do it we faked it. there was a report that russia plans to go to the moon by about 2011 or 2013, if the earth is still here. the US claimed we will go before they do whatever date they set. if we win the cold war we are the head of technology and we are the top country in the world.


jra

posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by chainsaw freak
a moon landing could easily be faked.


Please explain in detail as to how it can be faked. Explain the logistics involved and why it would be so easy. Also explain why the US or any other Country hasn't continued to "easily fake" trips to the Moon.

Your explination should also cover things like communications too and from the Moon and how that was supposedly faked, also how amature SAM radio operators were able to listen in when they pointed there antennas at the Moon. There were also independent observations done by astronomers using telescopes, spotting the thruster firrings from the Command module. Also explain how the 800lbs of lunar samples were retrieved.

There's plenty more things to cover, but I'll leave you with that for now.


i heard ( may not be true) that Disney provided the studio for the filming and the set is still standing at disney world.


There is no studio large enough to fake a Moon landing in. The last three missions, (Apollo 15, 16 and 17) covered many kilometers of lunar surface. There is no studio large enough to handle that.


the reason for the fake is simple, we had to beat russia into space. when we couldn't do it we faked it.


And if the missions to the Moon were faked, Russia would have said something. They were watching quite closely. They would have jumped at the chance to call it fake if it were, but they didn't.


there was a report that russia plans to go to the moon by about 2011 or 2013


Russia, China, India and Japan are all aiming for around 2020 to send some one to the Moon. I believe the US is aiming for 2018, if I recall.



posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
...

Each wheel had its own electric drive, a DC series wound 0.25 hp motor capable of 10,000 rpm, attached to the wheel via an 80:1 harmonic drive, and a mechanical brake unit



en.wikipedia.org...



The Lunar Roving Vehicle had a weight of 463 lbs (210kg) and was designed to hold a payload of an additional 1,080 lbs (490kg) on the lunar surface.


210 kg + 490 kg = 700 kg on the Earth : 6 (but is it true that on the Moon there is 1/6 gravity? Nobody have measured it) = 117 kg on the Moon.

1 hp (horsepower) = 745.7 watts.

Then 0.25 hp = 187 Watt.


Did each wheel have a motor like this?

www.hobby-lobby.com...

Cheap motors, very interesting.

Could 4 motors like this move 117 kg at 8 miles per hour?





[edit on 8-10-2007 by skeptic-friend]



posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic-friend
 


ignorant_ape said it best a few posts back...you're pseudo trollishness is getting tiresome.

You gave the answer already right in your question (in the external reference)...The answer is torque. Those motors on the LRV had an output of 10,000 rpm. Without any gear reduction, the LRV's motors would not provide enough torque to move the rover. BUT the harmonic drive you mentioned has an incredible 80:1 gear ratio (that's extremely high). That harmonic drive transmission converted the very high high rpm's of those 4 motors into torque. Harmonic drives are a relatively new invention, and it was cutting edge technology when th LRV was being designed.

Most automobiles have an engine output of about 5000 rpm, but the gear ratios in a car's transmission ranges from 1:1 to 3:1. That allows a car to go faster than the LRV, even though the car's rpms' are half that of the LRV's. But the car has lower torque -- all or most of a car's power goes towards speed, while most of the LRV's power goes towards providing torque at a slow speed.

To answer your question about the "hobbyist's" motors -- I don't know exactly what type of motors were used on the LRV...I don't know if it was anything like the hobby motor that you showed us.

[edit on 10/8/2007 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
...
BUT the harmonic drive you mentioned has an incredible 80:1 gear ratio (that's extremely high). That harmonic drive transmission converted the very high high rpm's of those 4 motors into torque.
...


What incredible torque?

Moon buggy had only 1 hp to move 117 kg on that grey sand at 13 km/h.

Impossible.






posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic-friend
 


yes they can - in a golf cart

smaller motor

smaller tyres - do you know why thats a factor ?

bigger payload

higher top speed

why do you never do your own work ?

if you did you would answer all your own questions

it is particularly telling that you never defend your contentions - you simply accept the answer given and move meekly onto your next claim

you really are shoing your true [ trollish ] colours



posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 04:06 PM
link   


Then astronauts would have had to go to the Moon with a golf cart.

Why have NASA buffoons disturbed Boeing engineers and spent 38 million USD?




Cost: 2,500 x 4 = $10,000

38,000,000 - 10,000 = $37,990,000 saved.

A GREAT SAVING OF MONEY and golf cart is faster and more beautiful.

To make 10 km trips around the LEM it would have been ideal.

NASA jokers would have had to use this system to land golf carts:




Why didn't astronauts play golf on the Moon?

It would have been very fun and the most amazing expression of ASWOL (american swaggerer way of life).







[edit on 8-10-2007 by skeptic-friend]

[edit on 8-10-2007 by skeptic-friend]

[edit on 8-10-2007 by skeptic-friend]



posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic-friend
 


Please stop acting ridiculous...

While I agree that $38,000,000 is more than it should have been, that $38,000,000 was for the entire program...that was NOT cost of one rover. The deliverables included 4 rovers and several test vehicles, several training vehicles and mock-ups used for specific investigations. Add to that the research and development costs.

And a golf cart would NOT work. It would be too heavy, too big (unless it could be folded like the LRV), and would not have the range. It would also be lacking the navigation system that told them where on the Moon they were. The LRV needed to be made from lighter (and more much expensive materials) than a golf cart.

Your air-bag delivery system for the golf carts would not work because the astronauts potentially would need to walk a few kilometers to get to the rover/cart from the LEM landing site. Airbag landing systems are not that accurate.

And an astronaut did golf on the Moon -- John Young (Apollo 16) hit a golf shot.

[edit on 10/8/2007 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 06:20 PM
link   
soylent green what isn't clear to you, that old lady that worked for nixon in the white house stated clear , the it was done here on earth.
It's a scam, like everything they do, it's hollywood.



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 10:20 AM
link   
I posted a link to a very interesting video series on page 106 of this thread. I happen to believe the explanation in those videos. The quick summary of those videos, Nixon ordered the filming of the moon landing to show the public should the real landing fail. It was filmed in the Studio used to film 2001 a space oddessy, with the help of the Producer of that same film. It was that film that was never used but discovered and used by conspiracy theorists. These facts are are presented by Donald Rumsfeild and Henry Kisenger in the video.



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
...

While I agree that $38,000,000 is more than it should have been, that $38,000,000 was for the entire program...that was NOT cost of one rover. The deliverables included 4 rovers and several test vehicles, several training vehicles and mock-ups used for specific investigations. Add to that the research and development costs.
...


38,000,000 USD : 2,500 (cost of one golf cart) = 15,200 golf carts.

NASA buffoons would have spent so much money for 4 of these:





They would have been able to get 15,200 golf carts with the same money:



NASA buffoons have grown rich with the fake moon landings.











[edit on 9-10-2007 by skeptic-friend]



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by wsamplet
 


Google some of the quotes from Henry Kissenger that appear in that video. He's talking about Watergate. The video is just a bunch of interviews taken out of context to mkae it appear they are talking about the moon landing.

Here is information on the film: Dark Side of the Moon

For example, in part 7, when talking to Henry Kissinger, he uses the phrase "some damn fool went into the Oval Office and did what he was told." He was talking about Watergate. Here's the transcript of that interview, which was done with Chris Matthews on Hardball: www.msnbc.msn.com...

Search for the phrase "damn fool" on that page, and you can see the quote in context.

[edit on 9-10-2007 by nataylor]



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ignorant_ape
 


Thanks, ape, for attempting to educate the ones who just will not listen!



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by MickeyDee
I truly believe that we did land on the moon back in '69, and so should everybody else.
So to finally end all the speculation regaurding the landings, why on earth doesnt NASA use Hubble to photograph the landing sites?
We've seen the amazing things that Hubble can do, so im sure it could give us amazing pics of the lunar surface.
It would be to NASA's advantage as their was no point them spending billions going to the moon if nobody believes they did!!!

One more thing! Why did they never fake a Mars landing!!


Well, I believe that Leprechauns should be our personal servants, and so should everyone else.



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 10:31 PM
link   
pepsi78 and skeptic-friend are certainly playing, and laughing about it I'm sure.

If they are really so stupid as to believe what they write then I can only hope they aren't old enough to vote. It's a similar M.O. we see on YouTube. Earnest, intelligent people totally debunk what they write only to be confronted with a more outrageous assertion. It's a sick compulsion to get under your skin - I will equate it to people you paint graffiti, or want to 'take down the Establishment'. Retro Hippies...



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 11:35 PM
link   
skeptic-friend - I admire your patience


I will not even bother to talk about the "Moon Landing"...but the effect of that stupid story is that everything that NASA does and says is subject to skepticism...and justifiably so.
I don't know which of the space vehicles are really sending some pictures back, which are fake...nobody knows. NASA is so deep in the suspicious waters, that we should check every word they say...and that takes time.

I don't have time to scrutiny everything they throw at us, but I know that - once a liar, always a liar...so I don't really take them seriously. It is a shame that I (and people like me) are deprived of real scientific perspective, as we have to filter everything, which is a tedious, boring task.

All of you who believe that humans walked on the Moon please disregard this post, as I don't have time and energy to answer to you. This was meant for skeptic-friend and others who share my point of view.

Thanks much.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 104  105  106    108  109  110 >>

log in

join