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: 137
29
<< 134  135  136    138  139  140 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 08:34 AM
link   
In short, the majority of the technology that is pertinent to "moonwalking" has been lost with those that designed it, believe it or not. There are lots of files, and drawings, and technical specs, but you have to understand that the people that accomplished this amazing feat held most of the details in their heads and it is dying with them. I just watched a "Wired Science" special on PBS that showed the importance of a "rocket" junk yard, where modern NASA scientist were buying stuff left and right to figure out how some of the stuff worked and get hands on experience with Apollo tech in order to design the next generation of it. I am an engineer, and have worked on projects, modifying them, after only a dozen years and less....and can tell you that first hand knowledge with every component involved yields more than the drawings and tech specs can give you combined....

Like the PBS special mentioned, they have a lot of drawings that say what, but not how and why.....and those are the only bits of information that matter when designing the next generation of anything. What is an easy question to answer with todays knowledge, why and how are not without direct, hands on experience...

If you think record keeping at NASA during those years was infallible, then I may want to point you to many, many rockets that blew up.......

[edit on 27-12-2007 by IgnoreTheFacts]




posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 08:36 AM
link   
Here you go, check out this link....

Wired PBS



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
In short, the majority of the technology that is pertinent to "moonwalking" has been lost with those that designed it, believe it or not. There are lots of files, and drawings, and technical specs, but you have to understand that the people that accomplished this amazing feat held most of the details in their heads and it is dying with them. I just watched a "Wired Science" special on PBS that showed the importance of a "rocket" junk yard, where modern NASA scientist were buying stuff left and right to figure out how some of the stuff worked and get hands on experience with Apollo tech in order to design the next generation of it. I am an engineer, and have worked on projects, modifying them, after only a dozen years and less....and can tell you that first hand knowledge with evey component involved yields more than the drawings and tech specs can give you combined....

If you think record keeping at NASA during those years was infallible, then I may want to point you to many, many rockets that blew up.......


I guess it was conveniently "lost" like the original footage of the moon landing.

Hard to beleive that such important technologies are kept in old people's heads and not written somewhere or store on computers.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheOracle


I guess it was conveniently "lost" like the original footage of the moon landing.

Hard to beleive that such important technologies are kept in old people's heads and not written somewhere or store on computers.


I was editing when you posted that, sorry. But you may have misunderstood, you are obviously not an engineer, nor worked on projects that involved older technology and engineering feats that may part you hair without something other than simple drawings and electrical schematics. And this has nothing to do with your missing moon tapes, the Apollo technical information is not missing, what is missing is the people behind it that can answer questions that their drawings and schematics can't, it's that simple. I don't expect many of you to understand, the fact that you don't clearly indicates you have no expereince in the complicated field of engineering, plain and simple.

I wish I could make you understand, but most of you guys are hell bent on proving what you "know" is true, so twist everything you see and here towards that end, ignoring reality and basic physics. I can;t help you there. But I can assure you, that going to the moon was complicated, and if you think they wrote everything down in a manner that can be recalled spot on 35 years later then you are mistaken. I'll take the drawings and the electrical schematics any day...but those only tell you what, not why and how. For that you really need personal experience, which after 35 years is missing. See my PBS link for more information.

Guys, give it up, we did go to the moon. All of your arguments can be shot down by anyone with half a brain. Why you ignore this is beyond me. Maybe you should give up the moon hoax thing, as your all looking like UTTER FOOLS, and move on to something else...god knows you have to have some conspiracy in your lives...maybe move on to 9/11 or the freemasons or something...but stop it with the Apollo crap, your looking like complete fools and you would know this if you had an ounce and a half of edumacation.

[edit on 27-12-2007 by IgnoreTheFacts]

Mod Edit: Please Review the Following Link: Courtesy Is Mandatory

ITF- Let's Attack the Topic NOT the membership, Please.

[edit on 27-12-2007 by Jbird]



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 09:47 AM
link   
There are many unknowns that they weren't aware of during Apollo that have come to light in recent years. Three examples The dangers of high speed particles in the mangetotail that extends past the moon, the moons surface is highly radioactive, and the large amounts of static electricity at the surface.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by notredame
 


One of the main reason is because this time they are not going to the moon just to walk around. They are going with the intention of building Moon bases and creating a permanent presence on the Moon. To do this will take a whole new kind of rocket that can lift heavier items. They are creating this new heavy-lift rocket (Ares 5) not only for the Moon, but to also be involved in a Mission to Mars.

They are also creating a whole new kind of crew vehicle (the Orion crew vehicle) which will take astronauts to the Moon and also take them to the space station. This new crew vehicle along with another all-new rocket (the Ares 1) will replace the space shuttle as the way to get astronauts into space (the shuttle fleet will be retired in 2010).

To answer your question, NASA could probably get to the Moon faster if they were content on another Apollo-type mission. But Apollo-type missions would be meaningless right now. What we need to do now is get to the Moon and learn how to LIVE on the Moon as practice for living on Mars. A Moon program like that will definitely take longer to build.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
...
...
And this has nothing to do with your missing moon tapes, the Apollo technical information is not missing, what is missing is the people behind it that can answer questions that their drawings and schematics can't, it's that simple. I don't expect many of you to understand, the fact that you don't clearly indicates you have no expereince in the complicated field of engineering, plain and simple.
...
...


What are you saying? NASA engineers, in your opinion, don't know the Apollo technical information to go again to the Moon?
That is a gross mistake. This is a great silliness. NASA engineers have written lots of technical informations and have prototypes of rockets they used to go to the Moon.
Your argument is a nonsense.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by TamtammyMacx
 


Welcome, Tamtammy,

Those three assertions are interesting. Can you back them up with actual facts? To put it differently, please point to solid science, especially the claim that the Moon's surface is radioactive. I'm sure that fact alone would be most distressing to those who are currently living there....



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 02:52 PM
link   



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
One of the main reason is because this time they are not going to the moon just to walk around. They are going with the intention of building Moon bases and creating a permanent presence on the Moon. To do this will take a whole new kind of rocket that can lift heavier items.


Yeah well I don't buy that...

Sure we already have Moon Bases up there...
But NASA? Build a NEW ROCKET? That is too credulous to believe...

I mean they even forgot how they did it before... and need to go to a scrap yard to pick up parts and study how they did it before...

Yeah yeah I know where is my evidence...

This is just a must watch video... If I were you.... I wouldn't let my kids go to be astronauts.


www.pbs.org...

I just love this one... This will be a classic! And from PBS no less!! Special thanks to the little birdie who sent me this in the mail





posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 04:47 AM
link   
I am very confused. I don't know what to think.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwahcker
 


Thanks, Mods,

You are quick to spot this person who seems to 'troll' by making new user names, or re-arranging the spelling of valid users, or just appending a "-2" in one case...

Rubbing my hands, can't wait to see the next alias.

Thanks again.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 12:59 AM
link   



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 05:38 AM
link   
It is impossible that we have lost our Moon landing technology.
Then I am really convinced we never went to the Moon.
This is the end of this thread.







posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
In short, the majority of the technology that is pertinent to "moonwalking" has been lost with those that designed it, believe it or not.

[edit on 27-12-2007 by IgnoreTheFacts]


I get what's being said here. So the first makers of the aeroplanes/Telephones/The Wheel/Computers/Petrol Engine/Saturn Rockets etc etc are now dead so we had to reinvent because they died? Eh? No I see because they kept building these machines, it wasn't actually lost like all that moon stuff, Rockets, LEM’s and such like i.e. continued development meant they are still known? Yeah, I see what you’re saying............ Errrrrrr what claptrap! NASA say it (the media help them with their presentation of this rubbish, ergo its FACT) and you buy into that?

The most important event of 'our' recorded history i.e. Humans leaving the bounds of Earth and travelling to another world, and the custodians loose the record of these events because there wasn’t funding to store/preserve/secure the material in a suitable manner?

The only difference between the 1960's Space fraud’s and today’s frauds is that it was easier to get away with it. Today, if you question you're a conspirator nut on the ‘net’ with obviously no valued opinion because those science boffins ‘know better’ and its all been explained away as Science Fact. But they are finding it more difficult to pull the wool over the eyes. FEAR, DIVISION, DIS and Misinformation to a spoon fed populace is what they are banking on these days to mask the findings. Proper informed debate that will uncover, not all, but enough ‘anomalies’ to rock their contrived version of events is not be entertained and certainly not to be aired on the half dozen mass media controlled outlets, with any platform other than the non-serious segment normally aired where they roll out the worst view of the material and usually the worst presenter of the ‘Alternative’ view (see the presenter: chuckle, suppress laugh, rye smiles or the patronising handling of this non-science based material and its nutty presenter of said material)

And if I hear another person on this site talk about UK(Europe), Russia, China, Japan etc being somehow ‘independent’ in their space, political, social or economic actions….. Common!!!!!! This is just such naive ignorance in the extreme. Who on here really thinks they actually have free-will and self determination free from governmental control?

I don’t know if what John Lear theorises is true (he may even be just another smoking gun to keep use from seeing the truth? See above:…. Division/Disinformation??) and science of course has ‘nailed’ certain known facts within the bounds of their current understanding but it still hangs together with assumptions, theories and a good dose of not talking about the ‘emperors clothes’ when they don’t quite fit!


Anyhoo, that was cathartic on New Years Eve, you can tell I’m not busy at work heheheeeeee



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Jeez, do you guys read past a quick sound bite you dig out of a post. I didn't say the TECHNOLOGY was lost. There are still all the blueprints, schematics, drawings, you name it. But those things are but a piece of the puzzle, and modern engineers would like to have some first hand experience with the older equipment to figure out the "how and why" they can't get out of a piece of paper before they make modern design changes for the next generation.

I swear, look before you leap. And if anyone here is an engineer, or is involved coming into projects that other people have left years and years ago, you would give your right arm to be able to have them on your team for a few days to pick their brains before you waste a bunch of time re-inventing or improving upon things they can sum up for you using a few, experienced stories.

No, people, they didn't loose the technology. Read the posts, watch the video in the links provided and pull your head out from under your conspiracy pillow. When you go off half cocked it just makes your side look weaker and weaker, because it affirms to most of us that if you can't follow a simple posting on the internet about the moon shots, how the heck can we figure you will ever understand the program, really?

Read, digest, then spout your nonsense so you don't hurt the very cause you guys "think" your defending (although your making our point darn near every time you guys post)



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
...

But I can assure you, that going to the moon was complicated, and if you think they wrote everything down in a manner that can be recalled spot on 35 years later then you are mistaken. I'll take the drawings and the electrical schematics any day...but those only tell you what, not why and how. For that you really need personal experience, which after 35 years is missing.

...


What rubbish are you saying?
There were a lot of young engineers at NASA in 1969 and now they
are 65, 70 years old and could help you to understand Moon landing technology.
But they have not that technology since, as you say, "I can assure you, that going to the moon IS complicated", so complicated that no engineer
could find the way to go there and to land going backwards.
If you are an engineer, you should know that a mass thrusted from the bottom is incredibly unstable and LEM would crash on the ground of the Moon in seconds.

They have lost records, they have lost technology. It does not seem to me we are coming out of a glacial era.






posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by unmasker.
...you should know that a mass thrusted from the bottom is incredibly unstable...


Do you mean like every rocket/missile that has ever been launched?



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Hey Soylent,

Our friend of many names came back, already banned. NO use arguing logically. Best to jsut ignore, IMO.



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Ha! He must have gotten banned while I was in the middle of writing my post.

Back on topic...I honestly feel that the main reason it's taking 12-15 years to get back to the Moon is because this program (the Constellation Program) is much more ambitious in scope than Apollo was, and thus it will require all new hardware and new/improved infrastructure. This will take years to build. Apollo was ambitious, but mostly because of the speed in which they got to the Moon (less than 10 years after the inception of the program).

As I said before, If they wanted to go to the Moon in an Apollo-style mission, they could probably do it in 5-7 years.

To get an idea of what it takes to go to the Moon, here is the Ares Rocket Program Quarterly report video for the 3rd quarter of 2007. This video shows the minutiae required in creating a whole new launch vehicle. And remember, this video covers only 3 months worth of work. (I can't seem to link the video directly, so when you open this link you need to look for the video link for the "Ares Quarterly report" under the 'Updates' banner -- sorry)
NASA Ares Page

[edit on 1/2/2008 by Soylent Green Is People]



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 134  135  136    138  139  140 >>

log in

join