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: 139
29
<< 136  137  138    140  141  142 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by maninblack
It is kind of to say the moon landings were faked,or else were would we have gotten moon rock from?
But I think more happend at the moon landing then we know.

The rocks came from Antarctica. They are rocks that can only be found on that continent so they figured that they could get away with the deception because the only people who go to Antarctica to collect rocks are sponsered by the government.




posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
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.


Pepsi --

Even if we ignore NASA's landings for a moment (or as you say, "alledged" landings), how is it that the Russians soft-landed various unmanned probes on the Moon? If, as you argue, it is impossible to slow down enough to make a soft landing on the Moon, then how did the Russians do it?

Plus, it has been proven that there are mirrors on the Moon (put there by the Apollo astronauts). Hoax Believers don't deny that these mirrors exist on the Moon -- they just deny that the Apollo astronauts put them there. They argue that they could have easily been put there robotically. However, if it is impossible to achieve a soft landing on the Moon -- which would be true for even a robotic lander, using your logic -- then how did the mirrors get there?



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78On 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.


Pepsi, How do you know this? Have you seen a video of it?



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
They are rocks that can only be found on that continent so they figured that they could get away with the deception because the only people who go to Antarctica to collect rocks are sponsered by the government.


And where did the Russians get their lunar rocks? And how to explain the presense of He3 in these rocks which can only form in such quantities in outer space conditions? What about the multiple pictures from the Sovet probes (some with bent antennas as seen in the pic, no less)?


jra

posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by jmdewey60
They are rocks that can only be found on that continent so they figured that they could get away with the deception because the only people who go to Antarctica to collect rocks are sponsered by the government.


And where did the Russians get their lunar rocks? And how to explain the presense of He3 in these rocks which can only form in such quantities in outer space conditions? What about the multiple pictures from the Sovet probes (some with bent antennas as seen in the pic, no less)?


And to add to that. The rocks found in Antartica are weathered and have been exposed to water and other such things not found on the Moon, they also have signs of atmospheric entry, unlike rocks straight from the Moon. But to top it all off, the rocks were found by the Japanese some time in the 70's and there is only a small amount that have been found to this day. Nothing comparable to the 380 kg that the Apollo missions brought back.

So no, there is no way that the Lunar samples can be from Antartica. Any geologist would have noticed immediately.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by jra
 


Welcome back, jra!

Just to expand a little on the Antarctic question, and how it can in no way account for the Lunar samples collected by Apollo...

Antarctica is 14,000,000 square km in size (give or take an ice flow or two). Somewhere around 380 kg of Lunar samples cataloged and known to exist. Wow! That's some good 'rock' hunting! Whoever found all of those in the harsh conditions of Antarctica, where there is a small window of decent weather each year, should go hunt diamonds in South Africa!

Oh, and those 380 kg of Lunar meteorites just 'happened' to be sitting around on top of the snow, ready to be plucked by the intrepid NASA 'fakers'...?

...but of course, they are now contaminated with the dirty ole' Earth's atmosphere and stuff...but, we'll fool every geologist in every country on the planet because we're NASA, and we said it's true?

Sorry, kinda forgot who originally postulated the Antarctica theory of Lunar samples here at ATS, but it's all the rage right now on YouTube. Hmmm...coincidence?

Since this is "An End To The Moon Conspiracy" thread, I think we've done a great job of putting that question (Antarctic origins of Lunar samples), at least, to rest.



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 02:22 PM
link   

IGNORETHEFACT

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



www.nasa.gov...



Concept image of the Ares V earth departure stage in orbit, shown with the Crew Exploration Vehicle docked with the Lunar Surface Access Module.
Image Credit: NASA
Hey, Soylent,

but that is the same technology used in Apollo 11 in 1969 (Have you seen that the image is shown 2 times in the same page? Strange people work at NASA)

NASA engineers from 1969 have not taken a step forward, the new program “Constellation” is the same already seen 38 years ago.

IgnoreTheFact thinks all NASA engineers from 1969 have no longer worked about new rockets, new landers, new probes, but they all have escaped from NASA.
The custodian of All Apollo Enterprise Tapes (AAET system) has escaped so quickly that all the tapes he had in his hands fell into Mississippi river and disappeared.
But why did all NASA engineers escape? Easy to answer: they were all ashamed of themselves since they were not able to invent a technology to land men on the Moon and invented a biggest fraud.

Not even today they have technology to go there and are re-proposing the old Apollo technology.
They all are cutting a poor figure like our 3 space friends:

youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 12:40 PM
link   


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...

Ok, then show me the video, where is it?



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 01:16 PM
link   



Even if we ignore NASA's landings for a moment (or as you say, "alledged" landings), how is it that the Russians soft-landed various unmanned probes on the Moon? If, as you argue, it is impossible to slow down enough to make a soft landing on the Moon, then how did the Russians do it?

Smaller objects are easyer to control, less fuel is needed for drones, it's the mass of the object, I do not beilive the lem could it pull of such a manuver, plus not all the drones made it , some of the crashed landed.



Plus, it has been proven that there are mirrors on the Moon (put there by the Apollo astronauts)

The russians put mirrors wit drones, so what is your point?


. Hoax Believers don't deny that these mirrors exist on the Moon -- they just deny that the Apollo astronauts put them there.


It's logical, so do I.



They argue that they could have easily been put there robotically. However, if it is impossible to achieve a soft landing on the Moon -- which would be true for even a robotic lander, using your logic -- then how did the mirrors get there?

Well here is your answer.

Sept. 23, 1958 E-1 No. 1 - Impact 8K72**/B1-3 The booster rocket failed at T+93 seconds
Oct. 12, 1958 E-1 No. 2 - Impact 8K72/B1-4 Booster exploded at T+104 seconds
Dec. 4, 1958 E-1 No. 3 - Impact 8K72/B1-5 Rocket booster failed at T+245.4 seconds
Jan. 2, 1959 E-1 No. 4 Luna-1 Impact 8K72/B1-6 World's first spacecraft to escape Earth gravity. Missed the Moon
June 18, 1959 E-1A No. 5 - Impact 8K72/I1-7 Failed at T+153 sec. due to flight control problem. (84)
Sept. 12, 1959 E-1A No. 7 Luna-2 Impact 8K72/I1-7B World's first lunar impact
Oct. 4, 1959 E-2A Luna-3 Flyby 8K72/I1-8 First photo of the Moon's far side
April 15, 1960 E-3 No. 1 - Flyby 8K72/I1-9 3rd stage failure. Reached 200,000 km distance
April 16, 1960 E-3 No. 2 - Flyby 8K72/L1-92 Failed at T+0.4 seconds and destroyed
Jan. 4, 1963 E-6 No. 2 - Lunar landing 8K78L/T-103-09 Stranded in the low Earth orbit
Feb. 3, 1963
E-6 No. 3 - Lunar landing 8K78L/G103-10 Failed to reach orbit at T+105.5 seconds
Apr. 2, 1963 E-6 No. 4 Luna-4 Lunar landing 8K78L/G103-11 Missed the Moon by 8,500 km
March 21, 1964 E-6 No. 6 - Lunar landing 8K78M/T15000-20 Failed to reach orbit
April 20, 1964 E-6 No. 5 - Lunar landing 8K78M/1-15000-21 Failed to reach orbit
March 12, 1965 E-6 No. 9 Cosmos-60 Lunar landing 8K78L/R103-25 Failed to leave low Earth orbit
April 10, 1965 E-6 No. 8 - Lunar landing 8K78L/R103-26 Failed to reach Earth orbit
May 9, 1965 E-6 No. 10 Luna-5 Lunar landing 8K78M/U103-30 Crashed into the Moon
June 8, 1965 E-6 No. 7 Luna-6 Lunar landing 8K78M/U103-31 Missed the Moon by 160,000 km
Oct. 4, 1965 E-6 No. 11 Luna-7 Lunar landing 8K78/U103-27 Crashed into the Moon
Dec. 3, 1965 E-6 No. 12 Luna-8 Lunar landing 8K78/U103-28 Crashed during landing attempt
Jan. 31, 1966 E-6 No. 13/202 Luna-9 Lunar landing 8K87M/U103-32 World's first soft Moon landing
March 1, 1966 E-6S No. 204 Cosmos-111 Lunar orbiter 8K78M/N103-41 Failed to leave Earth orbit
March 31, 1966 E-6S No. 206 Luna-10 Lunar orbiter 8K78M/N103-42 Entered Moon orbit, active for 56 days
Aug. 24, 1966 E-6LF No. 101 Luna-11 Lunar orbiter 8K78M/N103-43 Active in the Moon orbit for 38 days
Oct. 22, 1966 E-6LF No. 102 Luna-12 Lunar orbiter 8K78M/N103-44 Active in the Moon orbit for 85 days
Dec. 21, 1966 E-6M No. 205 Luna-13 Lunar landing 8K78M/N103-45 Soft-landed and studied the Moon
March 10, 1967 7K-L1P No. 2P Cosmos-146 L1 test UR-500/
N10722701 Entered Earth escape orbit
April 8, 1967 7K-L1P No. 3P Cosmos-154 L1 test UR-500/
N10722801 Failed to leave Earth orbit
May 17, 1967 E-6LS No. 111 Cosmos-159 Lunar orbiter 8K78/Ya716-56 Manned moon program support
Sept. 28, 1967 7K-L1 / 4L - Circumlunar UR-500 Failed after T+56 seconds.
Nov. 22, 1967 7K-L1/ 5L - Circumlunar UR-500 Failed to reach orbit
Feb. 7, 1968 E-6LS No. 112 - Lunar orbiter 8K78M Failed to reach orbit
March 2, 1968 7K-L1 No. 6 Zond-4 Circumlunar UR-500 Entered heliocentric orbit
April 7, 1968 E-6LS No. 113 Luna-14 Circumlunar 8K78M Ya716-58 Orbited the Moon
April 23, 1968 7K-L1 No. 7 - Circumlunar UR-500 Failed to reach orbit
Sept. 15, 1968 7K-L1 No. 9 Zond-5 Circumlunar UR-500 Flew around the Moon
Nov. 10, 1968 7K-L1 No. 12 Zond-6 Circumlunar UR-500 Flew around the Moon
Jan. 20, 1969 7K-L1/ 13L - Circumlunar UR-500 Launch failure
Feb. 19, 1969 E-8 No. 201 - Lunar rover 8K82K (UR-500) Failed to reach orbit
Feb. 21, 1969 7K-L1S - Circumlunar N-1 / L3 Exploded during launch
June 14, 1969 E-8-5 No. 402 - Sample return UR-500 Failed to reach orbit
July 3, 1969 7K-L1S - Circumlunar N-1 / 5L Exploded at launch
July 13, 1969 E-8-5 No. 401 Luna-15 Sample return UR-500 Crashed on lunar surface
Aug. 8, 1969 7K-L1 No. 11 Zond-7 Circumlunar UR-500 Flew around the Moon
Sept. 23, 1969 E-8-5 No. 403 Cosmos-300 Sample return UR-500 Failed to leave Earth orbit
Oct. 22, 1969 E-8-5 No. 404 Cosmos-305 Sample return UR-500 Failed to leave Earth orbit
Feb. 6, 1970 E-8-5 No. 405 - Sample return UR-500 Failed to reach orbit
Sept. 12, 1970 E-8-5 No. 406 Luna-16 Sample return UR-500 First automatic lunar sample return
Oct. 20, 1970 7K-L1 No. 14 Zond-8 Circumlunar UR-500 Flew around the Moon
Nov. 10, 1970 E-8 No. 203 Luna-17 Lunar rover UR-500 First rover on the Moon
June 27, 1971 7K-LOK - Circumlunar N-1 / 6L Failed to reach orbit
Sept. 2, 1971 E-8-5 No. 407 Luna-18 Sample return UR-500 Crashed on lunar surface
Sept. 28, 1971 E-8LS No. 408 Luna-19 Lunar orbiter UR-500 Orbited the Moon
Feb. 14, 1972 E-8-5 No. 408 Luna-20 Sample return UR-500 Returned samples from the Moon
Nov. 23, 1972 7K-LOK - Circumlunar N-1/ 7L Failed to reach orbit
Jan. 8, 1973 E-8 No. 204 Luna-21 Lunar rover UR-500 Landed and traveled on the Moon
May 29, 1974 E-8LS No. 220 Luna-22 Lunar orbiter UR-500 Orbited the Moon
Oct. 28, 1974 E-8-5M No. 410 Luna-23 Sample return UR-500 Damaged during Moon landing
Oct. 16, 1975 E-8-5M No. 412 - Sample return 8K82K (UR-500) Failed to reach orbit
Aug. 9, 1976 E-8-5M No. 413 Luna-24 Sample return UR-500 Returned lunar samples

Out of all this drones a few managed to land most of them crashed landed, and we are talking about drones that are smaller in size, drones are lighter, it's only normal that you do not power a lem engine with an engine that a drone uses, over all any way you got the statistics, and can you imagine they didint even test the lem before it wen't on the moon.

Drones are eayer to control because they require less throtle power, how heavy was the lem? if it would start spining it would be very hard to stop if it went out of control, it's only normal that it's harder to turn around and make acrobatic turns with a small personal airplane vs a larger airplane, and by the way the lem was controled manualy at some point, can you imagine that? they had problems while descending from orbit , the lem wen't out of control and they managed to land the "flying brick" with out problems, another factor is that drones have a total automatic trajectory on their descending, either they make it or crash.

You might argue that all object fall the same regardless of their weight, but when you try to control them it's a whole difrent story and that aplys everywhere gravity is present, it's simply harder to move a havier object vs a ligher object, especialy if that object is out of control and you are trying to bring it down the right way, it would be imposible.

.......

Total Apollo LEM weight 14515 kg , can you imagine trying to control an object such as this with vertical thust at that velocity?
Are you serios? if you want to beilive in the apolo adevntures be my guess but don't insist that we have to also.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 03:09 PM
link   



Pepsi78

Total Apollo LEM weight 14515 kg , can you imagine trying to control an object such as this with vertical thust at that velocity?



You are right Pepsi78.

LEM had not foot-brake. LEM had not wings and flaps to slow down its velocity against the air.

It was running at high speed against the ground of the Moon going backwards. How could they slow down its velocity? Imagine LEM is as a cube made of metal. On one of its 6 faces a rocket engine is placed in the center and pushes in the opposite direction.

What would happen? The pilot increases engine thrust and the cube begins to spin round like a leaf in the storm.

That is simple phisics that also children can understand.




posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by brilliant.



Pepsi78

Total Apollo LEM weight 14515 kg , can you imagine trying to control an object such as this with vertical thust at that velocity?



You are right Pepsi78.

LEM had not foot-brake. LEM had not wings and flaps to slow down its velocity against the air.

It was running at high speed against the ground of the Moon going backwards. How could they slow down its velocity? Imagine LEM is as a cube made of metal. On one of its 6 faces a rocket engine is placed in the center and pushes in the opposite direction.

What would happen? The pilot increases engine thrust and the cube begins to spin round like a leaf in the storm.

That is simple phisics that also children can understand.



Or the pilot increases thrust and the object slows down. Why would it spin? The thrust is applied along the central axis, the center of gravity is directly above the thrust, there's no reason for it to spin. There's no air turbulence, that's for sure. The LEM never ran at high speed against the ground, I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. And since lunar gravity only produces an acceleration of 1.6m/s2, it's not hard at all to beat that and accelerate in the other direction... The LM had a 45,000N engine. 1 N = amount of force needed to accelerate 1 kg at 1m/s2. Total weight of a fully fueled LM? 10,149Kg. Therefore the moon exerts a force on the LM of 16,238.4 N. 45,000 N is way greater than 16,238.4 N, so yes, the LM's engine was easily able to slow the spacecraft down and could hover while only using 36% of its available thrust. At maximum thrust it should be able to accelerate straight up at a speed of 2.83m/s2 if my math is right. Not too shabby.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by brilliant.
It was running at high speed against the ground of the Moon going backwards. How could they slow down its velocity? Imagine LEM is as a cube made of metal. On one of its 6 faces a rocket engine is placed in the center and pushes in the opposite direction.

What would happen? The pilot increases engine thrust and the cube begins to spin round like a leaf in the storm.


You don't know much about LEM's propulsion and steering system and decided to substitute a bit of poetry in its place, with leaves in the wind. Nice try, but it didn't work too well.


That is simple phisics that also children can understand.


You can?



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 12:57 PM
link   
If applying thrust at the bottom of a rocket causes it to spiral out of control, home come every rocket launched doesn't do it. The physics of slowing a vehicle down to a stop using a rocket engine is just the reverse of launching it.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor
If applying thrust at the bottom of a rocket causes it to spiral out of control, home come every rocket launched doesn't do it. The physics of slowing a vehicle down to a stop using a rocket engine is just the reverse of launching it.

What you are saying is true but only if the rocket has enough power to head up, With the total Apollo LEM weight of 14515 kg coming down fast VS a rocket that is standing still I would say your calculations are in favor of the one standing still that has no speed, it's only logical that it's harder to stop with any sort of power an object that is heavy that is traveling fast torwards the ground compared to an object that is standing still , the object standing still would be easyer to pick up, so your evaluation of the rockets going up would not match a rocket that is coming down, it's easyer to keep something up as long as it go's up, when it go's down at that weight, aplying vertical thusters while it go's up is easy, not while it go's down, the craft would start to vibrate while going down at that speed if it would aply vertical thrusters.
Your calculations are not relevant, you are comparing 2 scenarios that are in no way identical in behavior.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
Your calculations are not relevant, you are comparing 2 scenarios that are in no way identical in behavior.


Feel free to augment these calculations. Since the momentum differential equals time multiplied by force, you can see for yourself that the LEM with it's propulsion system was more than capable of slowing down. Really. No more "it's not possible".



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 02:34 PM
link   
For the non-believers,

This webpage.... =http://www.clavius.org/techlmstab.html]Clavius - LEM provides the best explanation of LEM stability and flight worthiness I've seen. It does so in fairly non-technical speak.

[edit on 1/7/2008 by darkbluesky]

[edit on 1/7/2008 by darkbluesky]



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Sorry, got the url paste all screwed up and my edits wont take. Here's the link again...

www.clavius.org...



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky
For the non-believers,

This webpage.... =http://www.clavius.org/techlmstab.html]Clavius - LEM provides the best explanation of LEM stability and flight worthiness I've seen. It does so in fairly non-technical speak.

[edit on 1/7/2008 by darkbluesky]

[edit on 1/7/2008 by darkbluesky]

If so it is easy for you than to provide video footage of a descending craft coming down from orbit and landing down softly on earth.
I'm sure you will have luck finding it since you strongly beilive in it.
Well let us see it when you do find it.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 


Pepsi, this premise of yours is foolish.

First, where do you suppose one would get a video that could succesfully track a vehicle continuously from de-orbit burn to touchdown?

Second, why would anyone build such a vehicle to operate in a thick atmosphere, which very conveniently, allows for a non-powered aerodynamic gliding decent and landing?

The LEM was designed soley to operate in zero atmsophere and to soft land on teh moon required only 17% of the thrust needed to soft land on earth.

Video of a retro-thrust Earth landing from orbit does not exist because no such craft was ever built because it was not necessary.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78If so it is easy for you than to provide video footage of a descending craft coming down from orbit and landing down softly on earth.
I'm sure you will have luck finding it since you strongly beilive in it.
Well let us see it when you do find it.



No can do with Earth, but here's one from the moon.



[edit on 1/7/2008 by darkbluesky]

[edit on 1/7/2008 by darkbluesky]



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 136  137  138    140  141  142 >>

log in

join