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: 138
29
<< 135  136  137    139  140  141 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 09:10 AM
link   
(Removed Post)



[edit on 3-1-2008 by chissler]




posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by .unmasker.
 


Before you get banned again, (I don't know why I even try, but here goes...)...

IF you have read anything else on ATS then you will know that some think Man has been to the Moon, (and Mars) since about 1962, if not earlier. So forget about spouting your nonsense here, go try your game at YouTube. Valid ATS members are far too intelligent to fall for baloney from you; I think most of us just laugh at you.

It is a little annoying when you come back, but hardly worse than a pesky gnat in the grand scheme...



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 11:08 AM
link   


Do you mean like every rocket/missile that has ever been launched?
That is not relevant, please provide video where some object descends from orbit with out wings , aplys vertical thrust and then lands.
If you provide such evidence I will give up the moon hoax theory and enbrace the apolo adventures...
remember, 1 descend from orbit 2 land , it must not be an airplane.
If such a tehnology exists then it will be easy for you to find it, if you can't find such evidence to sustain you claim then it must be a hoax.
The ball is in your yard, please show us the video clip, and no lame take off wtith slow speed stoping in the air at low speed and then aplying vertical thursters, I want to see it descending from orbit.
We are waiting for you to provide the video please.
Thank you.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
That is not relevant, please provide video where some object descends from orbit with out wings , aplys vertical thrust and then lands.


pepsi, you know full well that such footage does not exist because such maneuver is not yet possible on Earth, and filming on the Moon and other planets has it's own share of problems. Do you really need the video of something to believe it happened? Weird.


I want to see it descending from orbit.


IMHO your persistence can be put to a better use.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 11:23 AM
link   



pepsi, you know full well that such footage does not exist because such maneuver is not yet possible on Earth, and filming on the Moon and other planets has it's own share of problems. Do you really need the video of something to believe it happened? Weird.


If such of tehnology would exist it would be posible here on earth , they would simply need to aply more vertical thrust, since gravity is uniform and aplys the same way everywhere, but such technology is not posible,
it's simply not posible to aply vertical thusters at such speeds when descending from orbit.

I am still waiting for such evidence to be presented to me.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
If such of tehnology would exist it would be posible here on earth , they would simply need to aply more vertical thrust, since gravity is uniform and aplys the same way everywhere


Are you saying you are unaware of the fact that lunar gravity is pesky 16% compared to that of the Earth?



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Let's put on our logical thinking hats for a moment...

I believe we can ALL agree that Earth has an atmosphere? And, at Standard Sea Level it has been agreed to, by International consensus, to consign 1012 MBar (or 29.92 inches) as the 'standard'.

Conventional science proclaims the Moon to be virtually atmosphere-free...what latent gases exist are considered so negligible as to be very close to a vacuum.

I believe pepsi78 knows full well that, given those conditions as a starting point, the procedure for de-orbiting from an Earth orbit versus a Lunar orbit will require different equipment and different techniques, n'est pas?

A descent stage, using hypergolic propellents, in a non-atmospheric environment, in one sixth g is a heck of a lot different from an atmospheric re-entry on Earth starting from 18,000 mph, or whatever velocity is the starting point as you begin from the orbit or TEI trajectory you start from. At the risk of going off, even Mars Landers, as tenuous an atmosphere as exists, need heat shields for initial protection, then utilize parachutes lower down...sound familiar?



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Are you saying you are unaware of the fact that lunar gravity is pesky 16% compared to that of the Earth?

It's 8 times reduced compared to earth I know that.
My point is in 0 gravity you hit an object at hight speed it will still smash you, because the speed of the object descending from the lunar orbit at such speeds it would be imposible to land vertical, it's not about gravity, ti's about kinetic energy acumulating , the lem was 8 times lighter than on earth on the moon but still very heavy, you can move free in 0 gravity as motion, there is no slow motion of objects in 0 gravity objects can speed up regular in 0 gravity there is no force holding them up, howerer kinetic energy is present and does influence objects everywhere even in 0 gravity.
it's very hart to stop an object that is in spining or to turn an object even in 0 gravity , that is why everything is done slowly and low speeds, the space shutle alos when docking does everything slow, to aply vertical thusters on the moon while descending from orbit at such speeds is just not posible, the lem would spin out of control.
On mars they use parachutes or inflatable rafts , the drones crash and before crashing a inflatable raft surounding the drone comes in to work to save the drone that is crashing, and all that after the drone used a parachute.

Speed is a major problem, you got speed on orbit , you got speed while descending, you got vertical speed you got horizontal speed, the lem would spin out of it's misery, with out fresh air to glide like a plane I would say the best chance of landing on the moon for such a payload such of the lem would be 0 with the tehnology we got today, don't confuse gravity with kinetic energy, it's the mass of the object, it picks up speed while descending and as in 0 gravity kinetic energy will play a major role.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
lem was 8 times lighter than on earth on the moon but still very heavy, you can move free in 0 gravity as motion, there is no slow motion of objects in 0 gravity objects can speed up regular in 0 gravity there is no force holding them up, howerer kinetic energy is present and does influence objects everywhere even in 0 gravity.
it's very hart to stop an object that is in spining or to turn an object even in 0 gravity


Strictly speaking, it's more about momentum rather than energy because you need to slow down. Either way, your statements of "very hard" or "impossible" seem to be based on blind faith because sure as hell they are not based on calculations. You are saying it's not possible... Why? Simply because you don't think so.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Hey, Buddha,

I cannot understand anything pepsi is trying to say. It seems to me, mostly gibberish. My personal opinion is this is someone who also creates nonsense user names on ATS, comes in, posts, gets banned...ad infinitum....

These sorts of claims are best consigned to other sites....ATS isn't about nonsense, it's about solid arguments based on solid evidence.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 12:01 PM
link   


Strictly speaking, it's more about momentum rather than energy because you need to slow down. Either way, your statements of "very hard" or "impossible" seem to be based on blind faith because sure as hell they are not based on calculations. You are saying it's not possible... Why? Simply because you don't think so.


An obect is space will pick up more speed, there is no wind holding it back, galactic cosmic rays pick up speeds near the speed of light while traveling in space.

Acording to you it's no problem , then I don't see why it would be a problem here on earth, they just need to aply power to vertical thusters that coresponds to earth gravity, that meaning more power.


If it can't be done here on earth, it can done on the moon, gravity is not a problem when aplying more power, it's just that to aply vertical thust with out the posiblity to glide as an airplane at such speed is suicidal.




If it was done before I'm sure it will be no problem for you to provide us with a video clip of this acivement.
I can only imagine the lem descending at high velocity speeds from the lunar orbit and crashing, this could be the only outcome.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
Acording to you it's no problem , then I don't see why it would be a problem here on earth, they just need to aply power to vertical thusters that coresponds to earth gravity, that meaning more power.


pepsi,

read the post of WW re: atmospheric re-entry. Also, don't trivialize the 6 fold difference in gravity.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 12:04 PM
link   
I remember this from sometime ago the VTOL DC-X DELTA CLIPPER, I could not get any sound on this I hope everybody else has more luck



The Japanese are working on thier own version at JAXA the RVT-9

Link with video:

videox.imasty.com...



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by pepsi78
Acording to you it's no problem , then I don't see why it would be a problem here on earth, they just need to aply power to vertical thusters that coresponds to earth gravity, that meaning more power.


pepsi,

read the post of WW re: atmospheric re-entry. Also, don't trivialize the 6 fold difference in gravity.

We are in this thread, I'm not going anywhere, why don't you explain it, and while you are at it show me footage while such device lands the way you are insisting.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 12:06 PM
link   
For pepsi, who's too lazy to scroll up.
Read carefully.

reply to post by weedwhacker
 



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by sherpa
I remember this from sometime ago the VTOL DC-X DELTA CLIPPER, I could not get any sound on this I hope everybody else has more luck



The Japanese are working on thier own version at JAXA the RVT-9

Link with video:

videox.imasty.com...


How slow is that? it takes of slow then it almost stops in mid air and aplys vertical thusters before it go's down to pick up speed.
This video actualy shows a fact, that everything that was done was done at slow speeds, this is what I'm talking about, drop that object from orbit and I can guranty you it will crash on earth, it will crash on the moon.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78


Strictly speaking, it's more about momentum rather than energy because you need to slow down. Either way, your statements of "very hard" or "impossible" seem to be based on blind faith because sure as hell they are not based on calculations. You are saying it's not possible... Why? Simply because you don't think so.


An obect is space will pick up more speed, there is no wind holding it back, galactic cosmic rays pick up speeds near the speed of light while traveling in space.

Acording to you it's no problem , then I don't see why it would be a problem here on earth, they just need to aply power to vertical thusters that coresponds to earth gravity, that meaning more power.

If it can't be done here on earth, it can done on the moon, gravity is not a problem when aplying more power, it's just that to aply vertical thust with out the posiblity to glide as an airplane at such speed is suicidal.

If it was done before I'm sure it will be no problem for you to provide us with a video clip of this acivement.
I can only imagine the lem descending at high velocity speeds from the lunar orbit and crashing, this could be the only outcome.


The rate at which the LEM falls to the Moon has nothing to do with the weight of the LEM, since ALL OBJECTS, whether they are heavy or light, fall at the same rate on the Moon -- and that rate is 1/6 the speed that things fall on Earth. So EVERYTHING, no matter how much it weighs, will seem to fall in slow motion on the Moon when compared to Earth.

-- Acceleration due to gravity on the Moon = 1.6 meters/second/second. Everything (no matter the weight) falls at this rate on the Moon.

-- Acceleration due to gravity on the Earth = 9.8 meters/second/second. Everything (no matter the weight) falls at this rate on Earth.

Therefore, a 16,000 kilo LEM free-falling on the Moon will fall 6 times more slowly than a 1 kilo steel ball on Earth. In fact, as I said, EVERYTHING on the Moon will fall 6 times more slowly than ANYTHING on Earth (ignoring Earth's atmosphere), since weight is irrelevant.

As buddha said, don't underestimate the Moon's lack of gravity when considering the LEM's descent to the Moon's surface. The slow-motion rate of fall of the LEM due to the Moon's lower gravity helped it tremendously while landing.

EDIT TO ADD: Of course, this means that for every second of falling toward the Moon, it will speed up another 1.6 meters/second. Thus if the LEM was just "dropped" from above, it would accelerate to a very high speed before it crashed to the Moon. But the LEM wasn't just "dropped". It used thrusters to slow it down -- and the job of the thrusters was made much, much easier by the Moon's low Acceleration due to gravity.

We (you and I) discussed the concept of "Acceleration Due to Gravity:" once before: www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 1/3/2008 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 


Pepsi, what about all the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and Soyuz space craft that were able to descend from orbit and land softly without anything more than a parachute? So obviously it is possible to deorbit and land without airfoils like the Space Shuttle.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor
reply to post by pepsi78
 


Pepsi, what about all the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and Soyuz space craft that were able to descend from orbit and land softly without anything more than a parachute? So obviously it is possible to deorbit and land without airfoils like the Space Shuttle.

The capsules use a paracute and that is a big difrence, can't do that on the moon and it was not done, the lem landed with out one, and about the space shuttle, the space shutle is just like an airplane, it uses it's wings and flaps to make it down, none of them use vertical thust to land, they would crash for sure if they used only that.

The harier uses vertical thust, but only after it's near the gound and only after it slows down.
Here is a relevant question, ask yourself and this is only logical, if the harier can stand in mid air suspended only with it's vertical thusters why can't the harier do that while it has velocity and descending speed?
This is the truth, you can't land a fast flying brick if it does not have wings and flaps, the space shuttle is a fast flying brick but it has wings.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
This is the truth, you can't land a fast flying brick if it does not have wings and flaps, the space shuttle is a fast flying brick but it has wings.


It't nowhere near the truth but a proclamation. You can't back it up with numbers, and you reject the obvious fact that Moon possesses only 16% of the Earth's gravity pull...




top topics



 
29
<< 135  136  137    139  140  141 >>

log in

join