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: 128
29
<< 125  126  127    129  130  131 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 07:07 PM
link   
And as you can see, I went and added that in LLRV #1 they SUCCESSFULLY flew almost 200 times. So that one crash makes it a total failure?




posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 


That's right, and as Zaphod said on at least 198 other occasions, the astronauts were able to land this particular lunar landing training vehicle perfectly. The Lunar Module Pilots (LMPs) of the early crews got some training in this simulator before their flights. Neil Armstrong had simulator 21 flights while Pete Conrad had made 13. The other three LMPs each had made 18 successful simulator landings. The simulation program went on hold after Armstrong's accident, but it started up again later for the commanders of the later Moon flights. There were accidents, and it wasn't a perfect simulation, but it was the best they had.

Like Zaphod said, this was NOT a test of the Lunar Module technology -- it was simply a flight simulator to help train the LM pilots (and, by the way, according to astronaut Gene Cernan, this simulator did not handle as well as the actual LM -- the real one was easier and less dangerous to fly.)

Oddly enough, some pilots never did get LLTV training, even though the mission commanders did), but since the lunar lander did a pretty good job landing itself -- once they got the guidance computer bugs from Apollo 11 worked out -- NASA felt it an unnecessary risk to train the Pilots on the inherently dangerous LLTV (more dangerous than flying the actual LM.)

Here's a link to a conversation between Astronauts Harrison Schmitt and Gene Cernan, talking about the LLTV program. By the way, they also mention the Langley Crane Simulator the Moon Hoax believers go crazy about (for reasons I don't understand)
EDIT: oops! here's the link I mentioned
history.nasa.gov...



[edit on 12/10/2007 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Yes and the apollo die hard fans who support moon missions are posible on dates where gigantic solar flairs are takig place.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 


There was never a large solar flare while the Lunar astronauts were in space. One did occur in 1972 between the Apollo 16 mission and Apollo 17 mission.

And even if one did occur, the command module shielding would limit the astronauts exposure to 35 REMs -- that's reletively high, but not necessarily life threatening.

And again...these people were TEST PILOTS. There was a time in the 1960's that U.S. test pilots were dying in accidents at the rate of one per week. These astronauts were volunteers who knew the risks they were taking. NASA was a very different program back in those early days -- they took many more risks than they do today. That's how we made it to the Moon so quickly (less than 10 years after President Kennedy's mandate.)


[edit on 12/10/2007 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 08:31 PM
link   



There was never a large solar flare while the Lunar astronauts were in space. One did occur in 1972 between the Apollo 16 mission and Apollo 17 mission.

Well I'm sorry to inform you that on April 17,1972 there was a big solar flair, at this time the astronauts were on the moon.






And even if one did occur, the command module shielding would limit the astronauts exposure to 35 REMs -- that's reletively high, but not necessarily life threatening.




You are wrong from diferent points of view

1
With what, with havy duty aluminium foil, that will block protons in the range of 10 mev because the shielding was only milimiters thik.
Solar storms provide charged protons in the range of 100 mev that meaning a protonof that tipe will penetrate 3,75 cenimiters of aluminium shielding.
Nasa's shielding did not provide even 1 centimiter.


2
The astronauts were not in the command module, on the apollo 16 mission ,they spent over 20 hours outside the craft on the lunar surface.
Astro-nots Young, Mattingly and Duke, should have been fried, but, of course, they weren't, of course they survided the radiation shower from the sun's solar bursts, and the intense heat of course.




[edit on 10-12-2007 by pepsi78]



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Well I'm sorry to inform you that it was NOT a major solar flare.


Unfortunately for the ultra–heavy
ions accompanying a solar flare there
are
not
comparable
satellite
measurements. There are, however,
two very limited sets of measurements
that, on a preliminary basis, appear to
indicate that the CREME mean
abundances significantly underpredict
the ultra–heavy portion of solar flare
ions. During the April 17–19, 1972
weak solar flare, Apollo 16 was on its
lunar mission.
Tracks made by the solar flare heavy ions in
lexan and SiO
2
glass samples from the lunar module were
subsequently analyzed [24]. From these tracks five groups of
heavy ions could be distinguished: He, O, Fe, Z>32, and
Z>44. For the He, O, and Fe ions, energy dependent fluences
for the entire flare were determined; for the ultra–heavy ions,
the fluence at only one energy (051 MeV per nucleon) could
be obtained. In Table 4 are listed the measured abundances
at 1 MeV per nucleon normalized relative to He, for the
April 1972 flare and the mean abundances found in CREME.
It is apparent that the measured abundances for O and Fe
agree fairly well with those in CREME, but for the ultra–
heavy ions the measured abundances are higher by about two
orders of magnitude relative to the mean values in CREME.

www.boeing.com...


During a weak solar flare, energy spectra of He, O, and Fe from 0.2 to ∼ 30 MeV per nucleon were measured with glass and plastic detectors exposed on the Apollo 16 spacecraft. The spectra were very steep and the abundance ratios Fe/O and O/He decreased rapidly with energy, approaching solar atmospheric ratios at energies above ∼ 5 MeV per nucleon. The shapes of the rigidity spectra suggest that the ions were completely stripped while being accelerated.

prola.aps.org...



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 


I said a LARGE solar flare. The one that took place April 17-19 1972 was a minor solar flare -- not powerful enough to kill (although I'm sure the Apollo astonaut's chances for getting cancer are higher than for most people -- but not any greater than an airline pilot who spends many, many days of his life at high altitude.)

And it is true that the command module had no purposely built shielding, but the mass of the craft -- meaning the insulation between the inner and outer metal skins -- was enough to allow the astronauts to survive with doses of radiation higher than most people, but not lethal.

By the way, thick metal is not the only way to shield radiation. The designers of the Mars spacecraft are looking towards using polyethelene (plastic) for radiation attenuation. Pound for pound, it works better than many metals.

And speaking of radiation shielding, the whole theory that the astronauts would have suffered lethal doses of radiation was debunked by Dr. James Van Allen (the discoverer of the Van Allen Belts). He specifically talked about the FOX-TV show that raised the Moon Hoax question.

Dr. Van Allen had this to say about that TV show:

"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense."

Who do you think I should believe about radiation in space...a TV show put on by FOX and other Moon Hoax believers, or Dr. James Van Allen himself?



[edit on 12/10/2007 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 07:29 AM
link   


Have you finally understood what means "to land going backwards"?
IT MEANS THAT THE ROCKET MUST RETROCEDE COMING DOWN WITH
THE ROCKET ENGINE IN ITS ARSE.


retrocede

VERB: 1. To move in a reverse direction: back, backpedal, backtrack, fall back, retreat, retrograde, retrogress. Idioms: retrace one's steps. See FORWARD. 2. To move back or away from a point, limit, or mark: ebb, recede, retract, retreat, retrograde, retrogress. See APPROACH.

First of all, ease up on the use of the caps lock key, it makes you like like a telegram.
Have you ever considered italics?

So you mean to say that a rocket motor cannot be used as a brake?
Do you understand the concept behind the word throttle?




If you had a so powerful fart that had the strenght to sustain you above your chair, would you be able to balance yourself above it at 10 foot and

then to sit down without breaking your bones?


If I could do that, I'd at least have my own TV series by now....(probably in Japan)
Or a stage show in Las Vegas.


In keeping with your oddly colorful analogy.....assuming I did have the gastrointestinal superpowers that you've suggested, I'd likely have a sphincter equally powerful, which (with practice, I suppose) could act as a throttle

So the answer to your question is ..Yes.

Just as several videos previously posted in this thread illustrate.




Inertial Guidance for Dummies



The aircraft/spacecraft knows where it is at all times. It knows this because it knows
where it isn't. By subtracting where it is from where it isn't, or where it
isn't from where it is (whichever is the greater), it obtains a difference, or deviation.

The Inertial Guidance System uses deviations to generate error signal commands
which instruct the aircraft/spacecraft to move from a position where it is to a position
where it isn't, arriving at a position where it wasn't, or now is.
Consequently, the position where it is, is now the position where it wasn't;
thus, it follows logically that the position where it was is the position where it isn't.

In the event that the position where the aircraft/spacecraft now is, is not the position
where it wasn't, the Inertial Guidance System has acquired a variation.
Variations are caused by external factors, the discussions of which are beyond
the scope of this report.

A variation is the difference between where the aircraft/spacecraft is and where the
aircraft/spacecraft wasn't. If the variation is considered to be a factor of significant
magnitude, a correction may be applied by the use of the autopilot/attitude thruster system.
However, use of this correction requires that the aircraft/spacecraft now knows where it
was because the variation has modified some of the information which the
aircraft/spacecraft has, so it is sure where it isn't.

Nevertheless, the aircraft/spacecraft is sure where it isn't (within reason) and it knows
where it was. It now subtracts where it should be from where it isn't, where
it ought to be from where it wasn't (or vice versa) and intergrates the
difference with the product of where it shouldn't be and where it was; thus
obtaining the difference between its deviation and its variation, which is
variable constant called "error".



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by SpaceMax
 


SpaceMax, valiant effort, but I fear you will never get through to the likes of 'Pepsi78' or 'jra-2'. Every coherent and scientific post is ignored by them. Looks more and more like we're being 'punked' by pre-teens or adolescents who think it's funny. If that is the case, the Moderators should take notice?

Just a personal observation, even accounting for a possibility that English is not their first language, I see a marked similarity in these two users' posts with other inanity on 'YouTube'. Just my opinion...



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 





Every coherent and scientific post is ignored by them.


Duly noted WW, but who's punking whom?
Tell me IG for Dummies didn't make you smile?



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by pepsi78
 


I said a LARGE solar flare. The one that took place April 17-19 1972 was a minor solar flare -- not powerful enough to kill (although I'm sure the Apollo astonaut's chances for getting cancer are higher than for most people -- but not any greater than an airline pilot who spends many, many days of his life at high altitude.)

What are you talking about that solar flair was big enough to incapacitate and kill the astronauts on the moon surface.
You know what I find funny, your inability to produce numbers, everytime you bring something forward you just say no it didint or yes it did with out adding any science to it.
Well let's do the math shal we.


adsabs.harvard.edu...
This link provides some information on the april 1972 flare, it states that the solar flare from that period had protons that mejured around 10 mev.
As I know such protons can be found in the van alen outer belt.
It would be like the astonauts spending 20 hours the the outer van alen belt, and by the way, they werent even in the lem, they were outside just wondering around for 20 hours.









And it is true that the command module had no purposely built shielding, but the mass of the craft -- meaning the insulation between the inner and outer metal skins -- was enough to allow the astronauts to survive with doses of radiation higher than most people, but not lethal.

I'm not sustaining this theory but even if so this is irelevant , they were outside the lem the whole time, aplolo 16 crew spent over 20 hours on the moon unprotected outside the lem.



And speaking of radiation shielding, the whole theory that the astronauts would have suffered lethal doses of radiation was debunked by Dr. James Van Allen (the discoverer of the Van Allen Belts). He specifically talked about the FOX-TV show that raised the Moon Hoax question.

Yeah, it was all done.....you just fail to bring the numbers and facts up.
I would say that your post has no numerical data and there for is irelevant.
If you are going to bring me numbers with levels and show me why the radiation could not affect the astronauts then I will take it in to consideration, since your post contains stuff like, the ship had thik metal bars ...or the astronauts were protected because of their suits.then there is nothing to look forward to and it means that the apollo program was a joke.



Dr. Van Allen had this to say about that TV show:

"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense."


I don't care about what doctor van allan has to say, he could be on a pay salary at nasa, who knows, until I see numbers and fugures nothing will change my mind.
This with" we went because they say so" is pretty dumb



Who do you think I should believe about radiation in space...a TV show put on by FOX and other Moon Hoax believers, or Dr. James Van Allen himself?

If I were you I would research the numbers and make my own mind up.

here is a good place to start.
www.iem-inc.com...


1 rad (or rem) = 0.01 joules per kilogram
1 gray (or sievert) = 1 joule per kilogram
1 rad = 6.24E7 MeV per gram
1 rad = 100 ergs per gram
1 electron volt = 1.6E-12 ergs
1 electron volt = 1.6E-19 joules
1 electron volt = 0.001 keV
1 electron volt = 1E-6 MeV
1 erg = 1E-7 joules
1 erg = 6.24E5 MeV
1 erg = 6.24E11 electron volts
1 MeV = 1.6E-6 ergs
1 joule = 1E7 ergs







[edit on 11-12-2007 by pepsi78]



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 12:57 PM
link   
error

[edit on 11-12-2007 by jra-2]



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Someone with more knowledge should post a primer on how radiation is measured, and how, like the difference between English and Metric measures, there are different standards applied when measuring radiation.

(It's different in America, for instance, than in Europe). So, let's be sure an intelligent forum like ATS has posts from knowledgable individuals who do not confuse to different standards.

Maybe we need some sort of Rosetta Stone?



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpaceMax
...
The aircraft/spacecraft knows where it is at all times. It knows this because it knows where it isn't. By subtracting where it is from where it isn't, or where it isn't from where it is (whichever is the greater), it obtains a difference, or deviation.

The Inertial Guidance System uses deviations to generate error signal commands which instruct the aircraft/spacecraft to move from a position where it is to a position where it isn't, arriving at a position where it wasn't, or now is.
...


Excuse me, but where is the spacecraft when it isn't where it is from there where it isn't at a position where it wasn't before it was there in that position where it isn't before it was?




Originally posted by Zaphod58

And as you can see, I went and added that in LLRV #1 they SUCCESSFULLY flew almost 200 times. So that one crash makes it a total failure?




en.wikipedia.org...



In all, NASA built five LM trainers of this type. During training flights at Ellington AFB near Houston, Texas, three of the five vehicles were destroyed in crashes. Two were an early version called the Lunar Landing Research Vehicle or LLRV. Neil Armstrong was flying LLRV-1 on May 6, 1968 when it went out of control. He ejected safely and the vehicle crashed. A later version was called the Lunar Landing Training Vehicle or LLTV and three were built. Two of these were lost in crashes on December 8, 1968 (piloted by Joe Algranti) and January 29, 1971 (piloted by Stuart Present). The other pilots also ejected safely from the crashing LLTV's.


Three of the five LLRV were destroyed in crashes, two of the three LLTV

were lost in crashes = Five of the eight LLRTV were destroyed in crashes.

As regard to statistics, three or four LEM of the six gone to the moon had

to crash.







posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker


Someone with more knowledge should post a primer on how radiation is measured, and how, like the difference between English and Metric measures, there are different standards applied when measuring radiation.

I do not know what are you refering to, to REM mejurment that is the same as RAD mejurment because it's one and the same is universal as in radiation exposure.
This means that by what ever you are exposed to the mejurment in rads or rems are universal for everyone with no difrence.
100 rads will act as the same for example if you are iradiated by electrons or protons , the mejurment scale aplys for everythig that would count as radiation with the same effect.
I do not know what you mean by metric sistem or the other sistem.
If you want to bring a notice of some kind then I sugest you do, please explain your post.




(It's different in America, for instance, than in Europe). So, let's be sure an intelligent forum like ATS has posts from knowledgable individuals who do not confuse to different standards.

Maybe we need some sort of Rosetta Stone?

Rads and rems are the same where ever in this world, the mejurment is not diferent, square centimiters are used for the flux to determine the density, mejurmets are universal as in enerything , flux, energy power, and the output of direct radiation rem or rad, so I have no idea what you are talking about, I'm not the one trolling around it seems.



[edit on 11-12-2007 by pepsi78]



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpaceMax

...The Inertial Guidance System uses deviations to generate error signal commands
which instruct the aircraft/spacecraft to move from a position where it is to a position
where it isn't, arriving at a position where it wasn't, or now is.
Consequently, the position where it is, is now the position where it wasn't;
thus, it follows logically that the position where it was is the position where it isn't...


That is possibly my favorite all time quote. What is really exceptional is I think I might even understand it.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 01:36 PM
link   



SpaceMax, valiant effort, but I fear you will never get through to the likes of 'Pepsi78' or 'jra-2'. Every coherent and scientific post is ignored by them. Looks more and more like we're being 'punked' by pre-teens or adolescents who think it's funny. If that is the case, the Moderators should take notice?


I do not see the relevance in this post, it's off the subject, why don't you stick on the subject of this thread.



Just a personal observation, even accounting for a possibility that English is not their first language, I see a marked similarity in these two users' posts with other inanity on 'YouTube'. Just my opinion...

What is your point, because english is not my first languege ..what?
What is that got to do with the moon landing
you totaly lost me



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 01:51 PM
link   
ntrs.nasa.gov...



. . . . . . . . . . . .
Ultimate Load with Vehicle Pitched (6")
Ultimate Load with Vehicle Pitched (6") and Small Ground Slope
Effect of Increased Load - Pitched Vehicle
Effect of Increased Load - Pitched Vehicle with Small Ground Slope
Engine Failure, 2-2 Yaw
Engine Failure, 1-2-1 Yaw
1-2-1 Yaw with 6" Pitch
1-2-1 Yaw with 6" Pitch and 3" Ground Slope
1-2-1 Yaw with 3" Pitch
1-2-1 Yaw with 3" Pitch and 3" Ground Slope
15" Ground Slope
15" Ground Slope with -15' Pitch
Effect of Yaw - Pitched Vehicle (6")
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Effect of Yaw - Pitched Vehicle (6") with Ground Slope
Effect of Yaw - Pitched Vehicle (3")
Effect of Yaw - Standard Landing
Effect of Thrust - Standard Landing
Effect of Thrust -L Pitched Vehicle (-6")
. . . . . . . . .
Effect of Thrust - Pitched Vehicle (6")
Effect of Thrust Ground Slope 3"
Effect of Pitch 2-2 Yaw
Effect of Pitch 2-2 Yaw. Lunar Mode
Effect of Pitch 2-2 Yaw. 3" Ground Slope
Effect of Pitch 1-2-1 Yaw
Effect of Pitch 1-2-1 Yaw with 3" Ground Slope 32
Effect of Ground Slope
Effect of Ground Slope. Lunar Mode
Effect of Ground Slope. Pitched Vehicle (6")
Effect of Pitch Velocity
Effect of Sliding Footpads
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .


WITH ALL THIS SCIENCE, THIS IS THE RESULT AT THE LAST LUNAR

LANDER CHALLENGE IN OCTOBER 2007:

youtube.com...






posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by jra-2
 


TO 'jra-2':

Enough. Makes no sense without context. You are the one who continually posted nonsense about 'spaceships landing backwards'.

What is more, besides your continuing obstinance, is the plain fact that you usurped the User Name, the moniker, if you will, of another ATS member. You simply appended the "-2" and then came in to spout nonsense.

I would think that, eventually, a Moderator will be made aware and after a review of your historic postings will tend to agree with the rest of us.

Just my opinion.

Of course, as long as you are not banned, you have every right to disagree. And, as long as I am not banned, I will have every right to respond, or to ignore (which is the direction I'm tending right now...).



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 03:27 PM
link   
www.ehs.ucsf.edu...


A measure of ionization that is defined for X-rays and gamma-rays up to the energy of 3 MeV. It is about equivalent to 100 ergs per gram of energy deposited in air.


And finaly
www.iem-inc.com...


1 rad = 100 ergs per gram


300 ergs per gram is the equivalent of 9 MeV.
That being said 300 ergs equals 3 rads exposure.

3 rads exposure per hour X 20 hours otside the lem.
That would mean 60 rads just for being on the moon surface.


www.nodoom.com...


25-100 Rads - Typically people with this level of radiation exposure experience a loss of appetite and a small amount of nausea and sickness for the higher end of this dose category. Blood changes are noticeable. Up to 25 percent of persons experiencing this level of exposure will be incapacitated, but none will die. The normal period of convalescence will be about 7 days.


My conclusion, and it is my personal opinion that the apollo moon program is a hoax.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 125  126  127    129  130  131 >>

log in

join