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: 125
29
<< 122  123  124    126  127  128 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 01:48 AM
link   


please provide your explanation for why no scientist who has examined the rocks doubts their origin

I dont doubt it's from the moon, hey remember 1/6 it's probaly easy to pick it up, it''s weight would of been 6 times less than what it would weight
on earth, ask soilent if you don;t beilive me
so there you go.
I guess the drones did it.


[edit on 7-12-2007 by pepsi78]




posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
...

Conclusion: the object would act like an object that has 1 kilogram in earth's gravity, 1 kilogram in moon's gravity acts the same as 1 kilogram in earth's gravity.

...



What are you saying?

If you go to a planet that has 1/2 Earth gravity and your weight is 70 kg,

your weight will be 35 kg.

You think no one went to the Moon and it's o.k. but don't say nonsense

please.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra-2

Originally posted by pepsi78
...

Conclusion: the object would act like an object that has 1 kilogram in earth's gravity, 1 kilogram in moon's gravity acts the same as 1 kilogram in earth's gravity.

...



What are you saying?

If you go to a planet that has 1/2 Earth gravity and your weight is 70 kg,

your weight will be 35 kg.

You think no one went to the Moon and it's o.k. but don't say nonsense

please.


No jra-2 --

I understood what pepsi meant. He means that two different objects -- one weighing 1 kg on the Moon and the other weighing 1 kg on Earth -- would appear to fall at the same speed.

I rebutted this idea by stating:

1. ALL objects fall more slowly on the Moon when compared to falling on the Earth (regardless of weight or mass) because the Moon has a lesser "acceleration due to gravity" than the Earth. Thus things seems to fall in slow motion on the Moon

2. As I hinted at above ALL objects on a particular moon/planet will fall at the EXACT SAME SPEED on that moon/planet. The object's weight has nothing to do with how fast it falls. So (if we ignore air resistance) everything on Earth falls at the same speed, and everything on Moon will fall at the same speed (but that speed will be less than the rate at wich things fall on Earth.)


EDIT: grammar

[edit on 12/7/2007 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
...

1. ALL objects fall more slowly on the Moon when compared to falling on the Earth (regardless of weight or mass) because the Moon has a lesser "acceleration due to gravity" than the Earth. Thus things seems to fall in slow motion on the Moon
...


Yes, Soylent, you are right:

On the Earth:


Fall time (seconds) = square root of 2 x Height of the body : 9.81



On the Moon, if gravity was 1.635:


Fall time (seconds) = square root of 2 x Height of the body : 1.635


But nobody till now have been able to build a rocket that can land going

backwards. OF COURSE NOT IN 1969

If NASA jokers had been able to build such a rocket, they would have

filmed Lunar Lander while landing on the Moon.

NOTHING WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE SPECTACULAR.

DO YOU AGREE?





[edit on 7-12-2007 by jra-2]



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by jra-2
 


jra-2

What is your obsession with 'landing a rocket going backwards'??

Unless you explain what that means it remains completely nonsensical.

Besides, the only 'rocket' I've seen "land" is in old Science Fiction.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Landing going backwards is this:

youtube.com...






posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 02:26 PM
link   
I notice you're not nearly in the same rush to show this video though.


youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Very good find, Zaphod

Kinda debunks the concept that a 'rocket' can't 'land baskwards". Actually what see isn't 'landing backwards', it's vertical take-off and landing, along with horizontal translation, under control.

Gee, the British built a jet called the Harrier decades ago...



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I notice you're not nearly in the same rush to show this video though.

youtube.com...


Nice rocket lander
Stirs up a lot of dust....

Here is another one... LEM engine test... nice flame... stirs up a lot of dust...



Funny though... I would have expected to see a lot of dust when they landed on the Moon



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 04:19 PM
link   


I would have expected to see a lot of dust when they landed on the Moon


Zorgon, I'm glad you brought up the topic of dust. I was hoping we could have a discussion on that topic.
In fact you do see dust in the films of the landings. It's a notable feature in each of them
.
And in particular, you see the dust moving out from underneath the lander in a radial manner, in perfectly straight lines with no billowing. Just like you would expect in a vacuum.

How do you account for this in your moon with atmosphere model? I'm assuming you have seen video of the footage. I recollect it was shot through the LM window in 16mm by a fixed camera. Have you seen these?



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Here's another rocket example, the DC-X from the 1980s.
DC-X

I get the impression that some here have never played with a gyroscope before.
That's a shame.




[edit on 7-12-2007 by SpaceMax]



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Very good find, Zaphod

Kinda debunks the concept that a 'rocket' can't 'land baskwards". Actually what see isn't 'landing backwards', it's vertical take-off and landing, along with horizontal translation, under control.

Gee, the British built a jet called the Harrier decades ago...


I agree, that is actually no backwards landing.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinglatin
...

I agree, that is actually no backwards landing.



Hey, look at this movie:

video.google.com...

Not very beautiful backwards landing really.




posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 05:27 PM
link   



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpaceMax
Blue Origin first flight


Ummm are you presenting that as a launch or a fake launch? Kinda hard to tell in that video


Well if you think that flying egg was cool you will love this lander... I wonder if these guys agree with John about the air




But on both designs.... WHY??????




I like this shot better but where are the rocket flames?




[edit on 7-12-2007 by zorgon]



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78


please provide your explanation for why no scientist who has examined the rocks doubts their origin

I dont doubt it's from the moon, hey remember 1/6 it's probaly easy to pick it up, it''s weight would of been 6 times less than what it would weight
on earth, ask soilent if you don;t beilive me
so there you go.
I guess the drones did it.


[edit on 7-12-2007 by pepsi78]


OK, we established the rocks are from the moon.


I asked you to provide independently verified evidence of the US probes that were able to bring back 800 lbs of rock, and especially big muley. The payload of these unmanned missions back in the 70's wasn't very much, so you'll need to provide evidence of hundreds of launches, and don't forget, a probe that can handle BM.


Even if the Apollo Moon rocks were collected from the lunar surface, some hoax proponents argue[citation needed] that they were collected robotically. However, the large combined mass of the Apollo samples makes this scenario implausible. While the Apollo missions obtained 382 kilograms of Moon rocks, the soviet Luna 16, 20, and 24 robotic sample return missions only obtained 326 grams combined (that is, more than 1000 times less). Indeed, current plans for a Martian sample return would only obtain about 500 grams of soil,[76] and a recently proposed South Pole-Aitken basin sample return mission would only obtain about 1 kilogram of Moon rock.[77] If a similar technology to collect the Apollo Moon rocks was used as with the Soviet missions or modern sample return proposals, then between 300 and 2000 robotic sample return missions would be required to obtain the current mass of Moon rocks that is curated by NASA


the ball is in your court


[edit on 7-12-2007 by syrinx high priest]



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpaceMax



I get the impression that some here have never played with a gyroscope before.


Future NASA scientists at work...




But you asked me if I have seen the Apollo 11 landing yes I have and I have a few questions about it...




posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Even if the Apollo Moon rocks were collected from the lunar surface, some hoax proponents argue[citation needed] that they were collected robotically. However, the large combined mass of the Apollo samples makes this scenario implausible. While the Apollo missions obtained 382 kilograms of Moon rocks, the soviet Luna 16, 20, and 24 robotic sample return missions only obtained 326 grams combined (that is, more than 1000 times less). Indeed, current plans for a Martian sample return would only obtain about 500 grams of soil,[76] and a recently proposed South Pole-Aitken basin sample return mission would only obtain about 1 kilogram of Moon rock.[77] If a similar technology to collect the Apollo Moon rocks was used as with the Soviet missions or modern sample return proposals, then between 300 and 2000 robotic sample return missions would be required to obtain the current mass of Moon rocks that is curated by NASA


Mars is very far for one , robotic missions on mars were fewer simply because mars is very far away, 382kg is not that far off, divide that by 6 and you will see it was not so hard to pick up the material on the moon by robotic drones.
Were talking about 360 kilograms in multiple misions and not one mission.

I do not know why it would seem imposible to you that is so far off that they managed to pick up rocks from the moon with. drones when you think that man have landed on the moon.

To explain to you how big muley was picked up, big muley that weights 11.7 kg on the moon would have the weight of 1.95 kilogras, not even 2 kilos , all the robot had to do is pick a rock and place it in the container and then take off.

As for probes landing on the moon I have a diferent opinion.

Surveyor 1
Launched 30 May 1966
Landed 02 June 1966, 06:17:36 UT
Latitude 2.45 S, Longitude 316.79 E - Flamsteed P

Surveyor 2
Launched 20 September 1966
Crashed on Moon 22 September 1966
Vernier engine failed to ignite - southeast of Copernicus Crater

Surveyor 3
Launched 17 April 1967
Landed 20 April 1967, 00:04:53 UT
Latitude 3.01 S, Longitude 336.66 E - Oceanus Procellarum (Ocean of Storms)

Surveyor 4
Launched 14 July 1967
Radio contact lost 17 July 1967
2.5 minutes from touchdown - Sinus Medii

Surveyor 5
Launched 08 September 1967
Landed 11 September 1967, 00:46:44 UT
Latitude 1.41 N, Longitude 23.18 E - Mare Tranquillitatus (Sea of Tranquility)

Surveyor 6
Launched 07 November 1967
Landed 10 November 1967, 01:01:06 UT
Latitude 0.49 N, Longitude 358.60 E - Sinus Medii

Surveyor 7
Launched 07 January 1968
Landed 10 January 1968, 01:05:36 UT
Latitude 40.86 S, Longitude 348.53 E - Tycho North Rim


Pioneer 4 1958-1959

Besides this there are alot more probes that went to the moon, besides this I don't think they are going to tell you the name of the probe that picked up to rocks.


[edit on 7-12-2007 by pepsi78]



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
Mars is very far for one , robotic missions on mars were fewer simply because mars is very far away, 382kg is not that far off, divide that by 6 and you will see it was not so hard to pick up the material on the moon by robotic drones.



This is a report of a work in progress. So far as the author is presently aware, this topic has not been previously addressed. Proprietary work by NASA or others may, however, exist that address similar topics.

This work assumes that a base near the South Pole of our Moon will be established for the purpose of exploiting the resources of the Moon; principally the water ice that many believe was discovered by the Clementine and Lunar Prospector satellites. The ice is of particular value as, with the aid of the ample solar resource available nearby, it may become an essentially limitless source of oxygen / hydrogen propellants for continued visitation to and expansion of the base and for the support of additional space exploration missions, including human exploration of Mars.

This work placed a total 129 tons initial base for both the in crater and crater rim installations, as well as a 90 tons “marshaling yard” at the Earth Moon L-1 libration point. For launch services, the results of an in house Shuttle Derived Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle study were used. It is called Aquila. This vehicle can deliver over 50 tons to low Earth orbit from the Kennedy Space Center, using a combination of Space Shuttle and Delta IV Heavy components.

A second stage of the Delta IV Heavy vehicle was used to deliver 15 tons payloads from Earth orbit to docking at L-1. By so doing, no “new start” systems are needed beyond those of the L-1 station and the LRB itself, provided the Aquila and Crew Exploration Vehicle have been previously developed. At L-1, three of these once used stages are fitted with landing gear and other elements needed to produce a highly capable Lunar Vehicle and it is refueled from propellants delivered from Earth to place the base and to provide a single visit of a six person crew to aid the robotic operations necessary to produce a fully functional base.

If the ground rule is established that “dry” cargo and propellant must be launched separately, 34 launches were required. This will permit over 50% of the launches to launch only propellants. Later missions, using propellants produced by the LRB, show a large net gain in propellants available at L-1. For example, a round trip mission with the CEV results in a net gain of over six tons of propellant at L-1; a cargo delivery nets over 69 tons.

Work continues on the “pay-off” phase; that is, further missions making use of the propellants obtained from the shallow “gravity well” of the Moon. Propellants produced on the Moon will only be used from the lunar surface or from L-1; no attempt will be made to deliver them to other locations. That will come, but is “out-of-scope” for the present work.

A Mars mission departing from L-1 with mass of 686 tons can be placed on the trans Mars trajectory expending lunar origin propellants and just one of the Lunar Vehicles, requiring an additional 13 Aquila launches. This will permit dual Mars spacecraft to be used for each mission with a 28% mass margin over a single, similar mass vehicle departing from low Earth orbit.


SPACE TRANSPORTATION FOR A LUNAR RESOURCES BASE (LRB)
Hubert P. Davis, Starcraft Boosters, Inc.
1032 Military Drive
Canyon Lake, TX 78133
(830) xxx-xxxx
email: xxxxxx@gvtc.com

www.thelivingmoon.com...

Starcraft Boosters is owned by Buzz Aldrin...

According to Jack an "Aquila" left Kwajalien two months BEFORE Apollo 11

US PATENT 5,092,545

Method of Delivering Lunar Generated Fluid
to Earth Orbit Using an External Tank

Publication number: US5092545
Publication date: 1992-03-03
Inventor: BUTTERFIELD ANSEL J (US); GOSLEE JOHN W (US)
Applicant: NASA (US)

ABSTRACT

A method and apparatus are provided for delivering lunar generated fluid to Earth orbit from lunar orbit. Transport takes place in an external tank of a shuttle which has been suitably outfitted in Earth orbit for reusable travel between Earth orbit and a lunar orbit. The outfitting of the external tank includes the adding of an engine, an electrical system, a communication system, a guidance system, an aerobraking device, and a plurality of interconnected fluid storage tanks to the hydrogen and oxygen tanks of the external tank. The external tank is then propelled to lunar orbit the first time using Earth based propellant. In lunar orbit, the storage tanks are filled with the lunar generated fluid with the remainder tank volumes filled with lunar generated liquid oxygen and hydrogen which serve as propellants for returning the tank to Earth orbit where the fluid is off-loaded. The remaining lunar generated oxygen and hydrogen is then sufficient to return the external tank to lunar orbit so that a subsequent cycle of fluid delivery is repeated. A space station in a higher Earth orbit is preferably used to outfit the external tank, and a lunar node in lunar orbit is used to store and transfer the fluid and liquid oxygen and hydrogen to the external tank. The lunar generated fluid is preferably 3He.





posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 


whay are you including probes that crashed ? to help me prove my point ?


this probe brought back BM ???



let me take a page out of skeptic friends book



Either way, you still owe me photographic evidence or any kind of evidence these probes brought back moon rocks


The 3 Luna missions collected .326 KG of rock, and BM is much bigger than all of the rocks brought back by those 3 missions combined !!! 1 rock !!!

Yet you think 1 probe could lift it and bring it back ? Without anyone in NASA even being aware of it ? c'mon

it's very simple. The mirrors and rocks are proof man was on the moon. We left something behind, and brought something back.



[edit on 7-12-2007 by syrinx high priest]



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 122  123  124    126  127  128 >>

log in

join