An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

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

No can do on earth, you lost me? acording to you it's posible on the moon but not on earth?
If by your opinion it's possible on the moon then I don't see why it's not possible on earth? more power is needed , more gravity more power for it to work, so if it's possible on the moon by your opinion then it's possible on earth, so where is the video , i want to see it?
I wat to see a craft do what you say it could, but on earth, I want to see descending from orbit and then land the way you insist it's possible.

reply to post by pepsi78


OK I'll go slow.....

It's possible on earth but not necessary since re-entry and landing can be achieved by utilizing the atmosphere (un-powered glide and/or parachute decent).

There has never been any reason to build and operate a retro rocket earth landing vehicle, therefore one has never been built, and hence never been filmed.

I predict you will now ask why they didn't test the LEM technology on earth before sending it to the moon.

The answers lie in what I've already told you.

1)The engine would have had to have been 600% more powerful than the decent engine on the LEM

2) The structure of the vehicle would have had to have been 600% stronger

3) The added wieght of the stronger structure would have required even more engine power

4) The added fuel required would have required even more engine power.

4) The configuration of the vehicle would have had to have been different (aerodynamic).

5) The materials would have had to have been different (heat resistant).

Yes...I think that about covers it.

OK I'll go slow.....

It's possible on earth but not necessary since re-entry and landing can be achieved by utilizing the atmosphere (un-powered glide and/or parachute decent).


There has never been any reason to build and operate a retro rocket earth landing vehicle, therefore one has never been built, and hence never been filmed.

But nasa has been testing this sistem for years, for suposly going back on the moon, at all times they launched a rocket sloly up, and upon stoping in the air with absolutly no horisontal speed and no real descending speed, in other words every test was done in slow motion, the tests at most time failed and this were easy tests, nasa never tryed to simulate a real moon landing with an object droped from orbit because they would know it would fail because they do not even know how make a soft safe sistetem with a rocket that takes off gentle ...go's up , almost stops in mid air ..and then go's jently back down.
It was not done because they can't.

1)The engine would have had to have been 600% more powerful than the decent engine on the LEM

How does that change the fact that it was never tested?
If you do not test a craft how do you know it will work, esepcialy when other miniature crafts that were tested at that period had crashed?

2) The structure of the vehicle would have had to have been 600% stronger

I totaly agree with you, so they didin't test it, they did not know if was going to work or not, the moon landing was a lotery?

Over all none of the point you provided show the lem would be able to land on the moon, I do not see how it would be able to land on the moon since nasa never tested it, and since nasa never tested any sort of craft in a fashon that would provide evidence that an object droped from orbit would be able to pull off this, further more nasa is testing difrent rockets in the same lame fashon, meaning take off gently stop in mid air, then go back and land.
They are simply not imitating a real orbital descent because they can't, they never could.

Why can't we have got to the moon, faked footage of the landing, taken real footage of the real landing, faked data and samples, and taken real data and samples? In wars, propaganda and approved news releases are always censored. Why would the moon landings be any different?

reply to post by DogHead


DogHead...

If we 'got to the Moon', then why fake the footage? Oh, I know...some was faked to coverup the other stuff?

How about this scenario? Apollo was successful...

Was it a cover? Well, this IS a conspiracy site, so let's go in that direction now...but to dismiss the entire Apollo program as fake is, in my opinion, nonsense. Too many were involved in Mercury, Gemini and Apollo to have been involved in a complete cover-up. Perhaps they were duped??

Perhaps the operations were so well conceived, so well orchestrated as to deceive thousands of dedicated scientists and, well, even secretaries...the gamut, if you will, since 1962......and NONE have come forward to 'spill the beans'.

There may be a 'secret space program'...I don't know. But, point here is, if there were such a thing, the people behind Apollo would not be in on it.

So, Apollo happened. Did it cover other stuff? That's yet to be decided.

reply to post by pepsi78


Physics don't change just because you're going faster relative to a given object. It's not harder to slow down just because you're starting in orbit. They "tested" the system by sending it to the moon, it's the only place it could be tested. All they had to do during the descent was know what speed they should be going at what time, and all the computer had to do was monitor that and adjust the thrust accordingly to keep the LEM at the right speed. In fact, that's the easier part, the hard part is when you're going slow because you have to be actively aware of your intended landing site and be ready to quickly move to a different one if the thing is going to land on rocks. Did you know that you can run the same apollo guidance software used in the real missions by emulating the apollo guidance computer and that in physical simulations of the apollo mission the thing really works at navigating to and landing on the moon? NASA had previously successfully soft landed the surveyors, there's no reason at all to believe they couldn't do the same thing with a manned craft. What's "lame" to you is actually the hardest part though. When you're coming down from lunar orbit it's fairly easy to calculate your trajectory and all you have to be concerned with is simple newtonian physics. You're free to thrust as hard as you need to to get slow without any negative consequences. Once you get down "low and slow" and you're running low on fuel, suddenly you have to make decisions on the fly while just barely offsetting lunar gravity with a carefully applied amount of thrust.

[edit on 8-1-2008 by ngchunter]

[edit on 11-1-2008 by Jbird]

Originally posted by ngchunter
...

Did you know that you can run the same apollo guidance software used in the real missions by emulating the apollo guidance computer and that in physical simulations of the apollo mission the thing really works at navigating to and landing on the moon? NASA had previously successfully soft landed the surveyors, there's no reason at all to believe they couldn't do the same thing with a manned craft.
...

You don't want to understand.

www.astronautix.com...

After Stafford's camera failed, he and Cernan had little to do except look at the scenery until time to dump the descent stage. Stafford had the vehicle in the right attitude 10 minutes early. Cernan asked, "You ready?" Then he suddenly exclaimed, "Son of a bitch!" Snoopy seemed to be throwing a fit, lurching wildly about. He later said it was like flying an Immelmann turn in an aircraft, a combination of pitch and yaw. Stafford yelled that they were in gimbal lock - that the engine had swiveled over to a stop and stuck - and they almost were. He called out for Cernan to thrust forward. Stafford then hit the switch to get rid of the descent stage and realized they were 30 degrees off from their previous attitude. The lunar module continued its crazy gyrations across the lunar sky, and a warning light indicated that the inertial measuring unit really was about to reach its limits and go into gimbal lock. Stafford then took over in manual control, made a big pitch maneuver, and started working the attitude control switches.Snoopy finally calmed down..

With Apollo 10 NASA engineers tested the LEM in orbit round the Moon.

“The lunar module continued its crazy gyrations across the lunar sky”

The same thing I have said in my previous posts.

“Stafford then took over in manual control, made a big pitch maneuver, and started working the attitude control switches.Snoopy finally calmed down”

How could Stafford calm down Snoopy making a big pitch maneuver?

Snoopy was not an airplane or a helicopter. To make a big pitch maneuver you need elevator and rudder and LEM had not mobile surfaces.

ALL THIS EPIC EXPLOIT IS ONLY A BIGGEST FRAUD.

Hey, ngchunter,

try to balance a coke can on your forefinger. Aren't you able?

HOW IS IT?

reply to post by brilliant-


Before you get banned again (since we know who you are) do you know what the RCS thrusters are??? Do you see those little nozzels on the LM, a cluster of four at each corner??? Do you know that the Shuttle has RCS thrusters too???

Really...stop with nonsense. Wanna contribute? Give something we can work with....

Originally posted by brilliant-Snoopy was not an airplane or a helicopter. To make a big pitch maneuver you need elevator and rudder and LEM had not mobile surfaces.

*sigh*

Elevators and rudders only apply to atmospheric flight (and in fact, rudders don't do anything to pitch). Do you udnerstand what a gimbal is at all?

PS: Enjoy the ban.

Originally posted by nataylor
...

Elevators and rudders only apply to atmospheric flight (and in fact, rudders don't do anything to pitch). Do you udnerstand what a gimbal is at all?

You don't understand my humour. I know there is no atmosphere on the Moon.

You don't understand anithyng also about airplane flight. When you pitch you must use rudder and ailerons if you want to make a perfect pitch maneuver.

You must study hard to get supremacy above me.

[post to see if it will 'turn' the page in this thread...]

www.astronautix.com...

The lunar module continued its crazy gyrations across the lunar sky, and a warning light indicated that the inertial measuring unit really was about to reach its limits and go into gimbal lock. Stafford then took over in manual control, made a big pitch maneuver, and started working the attitude control switches. Snoopy finally calmed down.

Imagine Stafford inside the LEM that continued its crazy gyrations across the lunar sky.

“Stafford then took over in manual control, made a big pitch maneuver, and started working the attitude control switches. Snoopy finally calmed down”

How could Stafford calm down Snoopy making a big pitch maneuver?

Snoopy was not an airplane or a helicopter. To make a big pitch maneuver you need elevator and LEM had not mobile surfaces and on the Moon they are useless since there is no air.

ALL THIS EPIC EXPLOIT IS ONLY A BIGGEST FRAUD, A LUDICROUS HOAX.

Imagine you are inside the LEM and not outside. How can you react in time to get the right attitude if LEM is spinning round like a crazy leaf?

RCS thrusters are the most incredible crap NASA swindlers could invent. Snoopy could have 10 thrusters but the real problem is their control. ONLY MAZINGA Z COULD PILOT LEM.

www.geocities.com...



In this image we can see Armstrong at Langley Crane but Snoopy is fix on the ground.

They had built Langley Crane to test Snoopy but they were not able to land it going backwards.

For that reason there is no video about Snoopy tested on the Earth.



[edit on 9-1-2008 by JamesDean]

reply to post by JamesDean


OMG! OMG! OMG! It's baaaaaaaaack....

Dude, or Dudette, as the case may be. Get a life!

GO, get out of your basement, go to the library. Go to a museum, go do something to LEARN!

OK...'nuf of that...I have mentioned, others have mentioned, people who are far more intelligent than I have mentioned...a spacecraft that is designed to 'soft-land' in an airless environment can do so utilizing...a large, gimballing engine that provides sufficient thrust to offset the 'weight' of the craft, along with attitude control thrusters...or the RCS (reation control system) thrusters that are used to help in the stabilization of the vehicle. How hard is this to understand? It's not difficult, unless you purposely wish to pollute ATS with nonsense. IF that is the case, I feel sorry for you.

Back to a paragraph above, either get a life, or get an education. (Both are good options).

Yes, it is easy to land going backwards

youtube.com...

reply to post by JamesDean


You poor, poor thing. All of your 'knowledge' comes from YouTube?

Explains a great deal, in my opinion.

Same advice applies (before you get banned again)...read and learn about the real world of science...and the conspiracies that come with the territory. BUT...craft have soft-landed on the Moon...Surveyor comes to mind. Not by parachute, of course, on the Moon. SO, 'brilliant-', how did Surveyor land without crashing?

Originally posted by JamesDean
Yes, it is easy to land going backwards

youtube.com...

actually, it is...for NASA



edit to add: What happened to JamesDean? I dont see his posts any longer?
Banned again?

[edit on 1/9/2008 by darkbluesky]

reply to post by darkbluesky




You poor, poor thing. All of your 'knowledge' comes from YouTube?
Have you seen the video?
What is that abortion? Haven't you understood it's fake? Also my dog has understood it's fake.
You can notice it looking at its movement as regard to clouds.
Don't you notice anything?







[edit on 10-1-2008 by Jbird]

reply to post by darkbluesky



What is so hard for you to understand?
This craft does not simulate a real orbital descending where you got vertical speed and horisontal speed.
This craft that you keep presenting to us berly moves and in no way simulates a fase where the lem descends from orbit and lands.
The craft is higly unstable, can't you get it? that is why it moves slow, REAL SLOW!!! if this craft would pick a bit of vertical and horisontal speed it would crash, if you insist it's not so please provide a scenario where before going to the moon nasa tested a craft that would at least move faster than I'm running.

I think people will be more clear on this now than ever and will notice that the apollo adventures are a farce.

Excessive Quoting – Please Review This Link

[edit on 10-1-2008 by Jbird]

Well, this thread has unravelled since it has been continually hijacked by a trolling sort of chap. The OP hasn't visited for some time, apparently.

Maybe the person who continually comes in with outlandish theories should start his or her own thread...so he/she can stop polluting this one?

-spelling edit-

(one more edit to add...)

While trying to be tactful, and courteous, I think we all who have witnessed the hijacking know who I am talking about....

[edit on 10-1-2008 by weedwhacker]

[edit on 10-1-2008 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by pepsi78


First of all, we need to remember that even before the Command Module (CM) and LEM separated, the joined spacecraft needed to slow itself down from 11,000 meters per second (its trans-lunar cruising speed) to 1600 meters/second (its lunar orbital speed). This was done by turning the spacescraft around, pointing the engine in the direction of motion, and conducting a burn of the engine. I hope you don't doubt the fact that the spacecraft can slow down in this manner, since this is basic physics...action/reaction stuff, and is done all of the time.

Once the CM/LEM were in orbit, the LEM separated from the Command Module. Immediately after separtion the LEM has an angular (sideways) velocity relative to the Moon's Surface of about 1600 meters/second, but its downward velocity relative to the surface is nearly zero -- i.e. it is NOT falling toward the surface (relative to the surface), but is instead in a stable orbit.

Once the LEM separated from the Command Module it turns around and does a 'burn' in the opposite direction of its movement to slow down its angular velocity. Its orbital angular velocity was originally about 1600 meters/second. On its parapolic flight path down to the surface, it conducted engine burns to bring that sideways velocity eventually down to zero before landing.

This engine burn also helps keep the LEM's DOWNWARD velocity (towards the surface) low by thrusting the engine toward the direction of movement to make. So once it is a few 100 meters or so from the surface, it is still falling towards the surface at a slow rate of speed. It may have reached speeds of up only to several meters per second during it's descent, but since it was never falling at a high velocity to begin with, the engines were more than capable of keeping the LEM from falling too fast. So once the LEM got to within 100 meters of the surface, it was still falling along its parabolic path slowly enough for its engines to help it come to a soft landing -- plus the low gravity on the Moon helped tremendously, since it was falling at a slow-motion rate that is 6 times slower than we are used to on Earth.

As ngchunter said above, if the Command Module could slow itself down from 11,000 meters/second to 1600 m/s by thrusting its engines toward the direction of motion while in space, why can't the LEM slow down from 1600 m/s (that's 1600 sideways, but '0' downwards) to zero m/s while landing on the Moon? All they needed to worry about was if they had enough fuel, and it has been confirmed independently that the LEM did have enough fuel to conduct its landing manuevers (barely enough for Apollo 11).

Therefore, a craft COULD be going slow enough just before landing as shown in the video posted by darkbluesky. It doesn't matter if it started it's descent from 100 meters or 100,000 meters as long as the engines were keeping that downward velocity low.