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: 147
29
<< 144  145  146    148  149  150 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
Now about the lem.
The lem could of had a redistribution of weight at any time, it would be enough for astronauts to move a bit inside and change the distribution of weight to the side.The lem could also on it's weight upside down, it could also move too much to the side and go in to free fall, at such speeds I doubt the lem could make it with vertical thusters.
With a total weight of 2 tons falling at 10 feet per second, and in the last stage at about 4 feet per second I doubt the lem wpuld pull off a soft landing.


pepsi, the LM had two men, who did not move around during the de-orbit burn, to plan a landing on the Moon.

What is more, and you can research this if you like, the craft had, on each for corner, a FOUR valve thruster THAT...wait for it!!!

Could actually thrust, as needed, to control the vehicle. See, no need for aerdynamics, it's all Newton.

Picture this...and please, look it up, don't take my word, this is too easy to find out for yourself...

Here's a vehicle....four thrusters, times four...since there are FOUR THRUSTERS equidistant around the vehicle....that means there are SIXTEEN ways to control the spacecraft....

THIS, combined with the MAIN Descent engine to use, at first, to change orbit...and the attitude thrusters are used to maintain orientatiion....the MAIN Engine is used for altitude control....this has been well planned out by Mission Control....they know how much fuel is available, the sensors transmit the data, the Astronauts know, since they SEE the gauges. There is a time delay, of course, from the Moon to the Earth...and back. IT results in some misunderstandings....but that is because Radio travels at the... Speed of Light...and a round trip radio signal, even at 186,000 miles per second, still takes about 1.7 seconds (and thats just allowing for light speed, not to mention Human delays...)...

Finally, I hope someone can come along and point out here, how completely SILLY the post was. I am sorry if this vilolates T$Cs, but there is a point when we just have to stand up and cry "FOUL"!!!!! on someone!!!


[edit on 12-2-2008 by pepsi78]


I pulled a bigger 'quote' than I planned to...sorry, all!!!!

[edit on 12-2-2008 by weedwhacker]




posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 03:16 AM
link   
There are factors that you are not taking in consideration, when there is descending speed and horisontal speed such a device becomes extrimley hard to control, it had to corect it's balance when it moved left and right , all it had was little jet thusters, but never mind the moon, such a craft is not operational anywhere , moon, mars, earth, can you imagine controling such a craft manualy at 4 feet/ sec descending speed?
Do you think the lem was some sort of bouncing doll that came back to it's possition.

This does not matter any way, you know why? because there is no evidence that such a craft can function.
A 2 ton cube manualy controled at 4 feet per second going down.
Please show me a 2 ton descending at 4 feet per second and thenlanding.where is the video?
In stead you give examples of light drones landing on the moon that weight X-times less than the lem or you show lame air devices built by nasa that take off and then upon stoping in mid air with out any descent speed aply vertical jet power and then land on the ground ..instead of all of this why don't you show us the video, guide us to you tube and enlight us.


Facts,
1 No other space mission went above the van alen belts except the apollo missions.
2 No version of the original lem was tested before the missions.

3No other kind of craft as the lem was ever tested as in droping it from orbit and then landing it with it's 7 tons, as the lem had a weight of 2 tons on the moon, on earth I would be happy to see a one ton sort of craft droped from earths orbit and then see it land.

4Nasa to this day keeps having problems failing with lame crafts that use low speed where the craft takes of fand then lands ? or crashes?

5If nasa can't get it right and we are in 2008 what guaranty do we have that it worked at that time when one of the test vehicles crashed just before apollo 11 when armstrong ejected.



[edit on 12-2-2008 by pepsi78]



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
There are factors that you are not taking in consideration, when there is descending speed and horisontal speed such a device becomes extrimley hard to control, it had to corect it's balance when it moved left and right , all it had was little jet thusters, but never mind the moon, such a craft is not operational anywhere , moon, mars, earth, can you imagine controling such a craft manualy at 4 feet/ sec descending speed?
Do you think the lem was some sort of bouncing doll that came back to it's possition.

This does not matter any way, you know why? because there is no evidence that such a craft can function.
A 2 ton cube manualy controled at 4 feet per second going down.
Please show me a 2 ton descending at 4 feet per second and thenlanding.where is the video?
In stead you give examples of light drones landing on the moon that weight X-times less than the lem or you show lame air devices built by nasa that take off and then upon stoping in mid air with out any descent speed aply vertical jet power and then land on the ground ..instead of all of this why don't you show us the video, guide us to you tube and enlight us.


Facts,
1 No other space mission went above the van alen belts except the apollo missions.
2 No version of the original lem was tested before the missions.

3No other kind of craft as the lem was ever tested as in droping it from orbit and then landing it with it's 7 tons, as the lem had a weight of 2 tons on the moon, on earth I would be happy to see a one ton sort of craft droped from earths orbit and then see it land.

4Nasa to this day keeps having problems failing with lame crafts that use low speed where the craft takes of fand then lands ? or crashes?

5If nasa can't get it right and we are in 2008 what guaranty do we have that it worked at that time when one of the test vehicles crashed just before apollo 11 when armstrong ejected.



[edit on 12-2-2008 by pepsi78]


Fact...you have no idea what you are talking about I think.....

Fact...I think the very nice people who take care to monitor these threads will call you out, for who your are...

Fact...you are, IMO, the same persona that has been banned over twenty times, on this thread. I hope the MODS will recognize this, in some way.

Justice is a dish best served sweet.....or cold......



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 03:41 AM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 


Before you go away, pepsi78

part '2' pf your post...LMs were tested, on Apollo 9 and 10. Apollo 9 tested the LM in Earth orbit...10 took it to the Moon, to within 10 KM of a landing.

The LM was the only component of the entire Apollo Program to never suffer a major failure.

Yes, it ran behind schedule, but once Grumman put the product out, it performed flawlessly.

In fact, LM worked with out problems for Apollo 11...even though the crew broke off a circuit breaker ....they found a solution to get home.

Apollo 12....Apollo 13, damage from the CSM compromised the mission but the crew retuned home safely, because the LM was a good lifeboat, in this case...

Apollo 14, successful as well.

Apollo 15, 16 and 17...so much Lunar science accomplished, due to the incorporation of the LR, in the descent stage MESA compartments. IT was not all about fuel, people!!!

The biggest deal, as egards fuel...after landing...was in the ascent Stage, of the LM....that got everyone home.....

[edit on 12-2-2008 by weedwhacker]



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 05:31 AM
link   


part '2' pf your post...LMs were tested, on Apollo 9 and 10. Apollo 9 tested the LM in Earth orbit...10 took it to the Moon, to within 10 KM of a landing.

How do you test a landing module in orbit? how about droping it from orbit? you know landing it?
Regarding apollo 10 testing it on the moon has 0 credibility, sice the moon missions them selfs are in doubt .In the end none of them preformed landings.


The LM was the only component of the entire Apollo Program to never suffer a major failure.



You still can't prove they fully tested the lem, plus the fact that the lem was tested on the moon half way , it's like making some one that does not believe in the moon landings accept the fact that it was tested on the moon.
The whole point of this debate is if they went on the moon, and you are comming and telling me they tested the lem on the moon, to my opinion it would of crashed.





In fact, LM worked with out problems for Apollo 11...even though the crew broke off a circuit breaker ....they found a solution to get home.

How do you know?because they told you?
They told you it worked perfect, and you accepted it.
I don't have to.


This is what they told you, but but but.....how can it be proven? can you prove the moon landing?
I do not beilive any of this because I do not know if they tested the lem on the moon, I do not know if the lem landed for real on the moon, and I do not know if they played golf up there, just because they say everithing was okey dokey is not enough, acording to my own toughts I think for example the test lem used on the apollo 10 would of crashed just like the others simply because of the speed of the object in an inviorment where gravity is present but there is vacum.

If they would of tested the lem on earth as in drop it from orbit and land it , then I would of told you..I rest my case.


Regarding me as leaving soon,as I'm some one that you think I am? I do not have any idea what you mean by that, I've been here as an active member on this lovley international forum form 2005, and I've participated in this thread long before you did.

You didin't even bother to comment on the other points, that is because you have no arguments on them.
cheers



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78

How do you test a landing module in orbit? how about droping it from orbit? you know landing it?
Regarding apollo 10 testing it on the moon has 0 credibility, sice the moon missions them selfs are in doubt .In the end none of them preformed landings.

You turn on the engine and see if it works. It worked. Not that hard, really. Apollo 10 only has "0 credibility" if you can prove it was faked. Saying that you "doubt it" isn't sufficient. What makes apollo 10 so impossible?




You still can't prove they fully tested the lem, plus the fact that the lem was tested on the moon half way , it's like making some one that does not believe in the moon landings accept the fact that it was tested on the moon.
The whole point of this debate is if they went on the moon, and you are comming and telling me they tested the lem on the moon, to my opinion it would of crashed.


Simulations of the Apollo hardware, including the actual guidance computer software, show that there's no reason for it to crash when properly operated. It's "speed" is irrelevant. An object's "speed" in orbit does not affect it's ability to perform maneuvers with thrusters, "big" or "small."




How do you know?because they told you?
They told you it worked perfect, and you accepted it.
I don't have to.

How do you know they didn't solve it?


This is what they told you, but but but.....how can it be proven? can you prove the moon landing?

Countless photos and video evidence, all showing the characteristics of an atmosphere-free low gravity environment impossible to replicate on earth, a completely consistent and amazing design and engineering of the most powerful spacecraft ever built, and physical samples not of this earth and showing no signs of high speed entry into the atmosphere.


I do not beilive any of this because I do not know if they tested the lem on the moon, I do not know if the lem landed for real on the moon, and I do not know if they played golf up there, just because they say everithing was okey dokey is not enough, acording to my own toughts I think for example the test lem used on the apollo 10 would of crashed just like the others simply because of the speed of the object in an inviorment where gravity is present but there is vacum.

According to your own thoughts? Just like the others? The "speed" of the object does not affect it's angular momentum, it can turn, maneuver, and slow down without a problem, just like the shuttle does. Physics doesn't work the way you apparently think it does.


If they would of tested the lem on earth as in drop it from orbit and land it , then I would of told you..I rest my case.

You can't test it like that for 2 huge (and what I thought were obvious) reasons - earth has an atmosphere, the LM was not designed to hit an atmosphere at high speed, nor was it designed to travel at supersonic speeds. Earth also has much more gravity than the moon, and while this still doesn't affect it's ability to maneuver, the LM only has enough thrust to safely hover in the low gravity of the moon, not enough to maintain any kind of reasonable descent rate on earth. They DID test a LM simulator on earth though, designed to work in earth's higher gravity. And guess what? It worked most of the time, the only time it failed was for random mechanical reasons, not for any problem with the "physics" of the situation.


Regarding me as leaving soon,as I'm some one that you think I am? I do not have any idea what you mean by that, I've been here as an active member on this lovley international forum form 2005, and I've participated in this thread long before you did.

You didin't even bother to comment on the other points, that is because you have no arguments on them.
cheers



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 

Pepsi --

Two things:

1. The LEM concept was EXTENSIVELY tested.

2. Apollo 11 was officially a TEST FLIGHT done by TEST PILOTS. Test pilots took risks...it was their job. In fact there was a time in the 1950s and early 1960s that airforce test pilots were getting killed at the rate of 1 per week.


You can't test the Apollo LEM on Earth beacuse it is designed to work on the Moon's 1/6 gravity -- the Apollo LEM would not work in Earth's gravity, so it MUST be tested in space....and it WAS tested in space AND above the Moon's surface. Plus we know the concept worked because of the successful flights of the LLRV. Even though there were crashes, the LLRV program was a success. The LLRV program was a very important test and proof that the LEM concept works. Don't confuse the LLRV with the LLTV -- they were two different programs, but even the LLTV training fights still helped prove and refine the LEM concept.

Maybe they didn't land Apollo 10, but they tested the way it manuevered a few miles above the Moon's surface. Frankly, if the LEM can be controlled above the surface, there is no reason why it couldn't be controlled at the surface -- Flight dynamics on the Moon don't change just because you happen to be 4 meters off the ground as opposed to 16 km. The pull of gravity is still about the same, and since there is negligible atmosphere, there are no atmospheric differences between the surface and 16 km above.

The information gathered from that Apollo 10 test flight...plus the Apollo 9 test flight...plus all of the LLRV test flights...plus all of their calculations led NASA to believe they could move on to the NEXT TEST FLIGHT, which happened to be landing it on the Moon. They were testing the LEM for at least 5 years prior to that landing.

Don't forget, the Apollo 11 astronauts were first and foremost test pilots, and Apollo 11 was first and foremost a test flight. SOMEBODY had to be the first person to take the next test flight and actually land the LEM on the Moon, and that person was test pilot Neil Armstrong. It was the next logical step in the Apollo Program.

I'll say this again because it is important, the LEM was tested in space AND above the Moon -- if it works a few km above the moon there is absolutely no reason why it would handle any differently at the Moon's surface. The physics are the practically the same.

By the way, the Space Shuttle's very first launch and re-entry had test pilots on board also -- just like Apollo 11. It is true that they test-landed the Shuttle a couple of times from a 747 jet, but flying off of a 747 does not match the aeronautics involved in bring the shuttle home from orbit; re-entry involves a totally separate batch of aerodynamic problems. In fact, there were some experienced aerospace engineers who warned NASA that the shuttle may be uncontrollable upon re-entry. But NASA had enough calculations to show that it would work -- and it did, with astronauts test pilots on board.

Using your argument, NASA should have somehow tested the re-entry abilities of the shuttle here on Earth before allowing the Astronauts to fly it. Apollo 11-- like the space shuttle's first orbital flight -- was dangerous, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 


Pepsi

There are dozens, maybe hundreds of technical books available that describe in great detail the specifications, construction methodology, design process, and engineering challenges associated with the Grumman lunar lander.

Here is my favorite, it was written by the Lunar Module project manager at Grumman..Thomas Kelly (a brother Irishman).



Link to Amazon

On the Amazon page you can ask for more books like this one.

If you can only read one, I strongly urge you to read Tom Kelly's.

If you don't want to buy it, try the library. If your library doesn't have it, send me a U2U and I'll give you my soft cover copy.

Your posts seem to indicate it's only your personal disbelief that the engineering and aeronautical challenges of the LM were insurmountable. Maybe if you read, first hand, what the man who built the thing has to say, some of your doubts might be eased.

Good luck.


[edit on 2/12/2008 by darkbluesky]



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 12:56 AM
link   
Thought I'd pop in again, just to offer....

Saw a fairly recent documentary, on the Science Channel (you will need a Cable or Satellite subscription...or, I guess, you could buy the derned thing online...I am NOT advocating that, try to find a friend with Cable or Satellite)...

Anyway, the title was 'Tank on the Moon'....it chronicalled the Soviet effort to beat the Americans to the Moon with a remote-controlled lander.

Thing is, they actually soft-landed the first 'rover' on the Moon, in 1970 (of course, after Apollo 11...but only because their first vehicle blew up on launch, in early March 1969).

So, for all of you (I know there is only one...!!!) poster who comes in and tries to say that it is 'imposible to land goeing bakcwards' (sic!!)...and you know who you are...just research the Russian Lunar Exploration program, and try to tell us that it was FAKED as well....

Look up Luna 9...Luna 15....or translate to Russian, if it helps to search, I don't know....

While you are at it, look up 'Surveyor'....

Yeah, I know....all unmanned...but answer this question:

If there was experience soft-landing an unmanned payload on the Moon, why would it be 'impossible' to follow-on with a manned payload?

Seems it IS possible...and not only that, it is historical fact.



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Just one example of LM testing...


Chapter 6:
THE GRAND FINALE

Apollo 5 was launched on 22 January 1968
with the primary objective of testing the lunar
descent propulsion; the ascent propulsion, including
restarting capability; the spacecraft structure;
the instrumentation and control; and the second
stage of the Saturn IB. After separation from the
Saturn booster, the Lunar Module was in an elliptical
orbit and proceeded with a test of the descent
stage. The planned 39-second burn only lasted 4
seconds due to a computer program glitch. The
ground controller shifted to an alternate plan and
tested the descent stage first with a 26-second burn
at 10-percent thrust and, finally, a 7-second blast at
maximum thrust. Later, each stage was put through
its paces, ending with an ascent-stage firing of over
6 minutes.
The descent engine was throttleable, like that of
an automobile—the only rocket motor with this
capability, which was necessary for a soft-landing
on the lunar surface. Ignition of the ascent engine
was essential to recovery; there was no redundancy.
For this reason, hypergolic fuel was utilized—ignition
occurred without the need for a separate firing
source. In an abort, this stage had to ignite and fire
even while the descent stage was still providing
thrust. During the test, the so-called “fire in the
hole” was successful. The flight was judged satisfactory,
and the Lunar Lander was declared ready
for manned flight.


Source



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ThatsJustWeird
 


Watch the documentary "A funny thing happened on the way to the moon" and actually be conscious and un bias because the evidence is real. You can find it on Youtube and Google video.

1. Where did they go?
They stayed in Earths lower orbit due to the fact that 1960's tech could not protect them from radiation.



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by xion329alpha
 


xion, I am sorry, but the video you have referenced is total bunk...it's already been discussed ad infinitum.

Perhaps, if you wish, start a thread that touts the "movie" and see the responses. Could be a great education for you....

adding....'documentary'!!!! Oh, that made me laugh, thanks!!

[edit on 14-2-2008 by weedwhacker]



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by xion329alpha
reply to post by ThatsJustWeird
 


Watch the documentary "A funny thing happened on the way to the moon" and actually be conscious and un bias because the evidence is real. You can find it on Youtube and Google video.

1. Where did they go?
They stayed in Earths lower orbit due to the fact that 1960's tech could not protect them from radiation.

Yes, that is the main factor that made me doubt the moon missions.
I already explained that the radiation charts from the Apollo missions are a joke.
There is the van alen belts , they spent a total of 1 hour in it going to the moon and comming back.
There are particles hiting the moon generating radiation, the moon it's self is radioactive.
There were solar flares and they were on the moon on one such ocasion.
Beside that there was a bigest solar flare of the century, charging the particles within the van alen belts and making them even more dangeros, charging the particles that come from our sun that travel trough out our solar sistem at levels of 500 mev, they decided to go to the moon right after it.
They come up after the mission with a charts registering 5 rem at best.

[edit on 15-2-2008 by pepsi78]
I must edit my post and add.....What a joke.


[edit on 15-2-2008 by pepsi78]



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 


pepsi, we have already told you, many times, that what you have been told is false.

Let's put it this way...why would hundreds of thousands of very well trained people be wrong, but a few hundred 'hoax' believers be correct??

You see the problem here?

The video, 'funny thing to the moon', or whatever it is called, is FULL OF nonsense! Oh, and the Van Allen Belts? The good Dr. van Allen HIMSELF said, before he died (guess it would be more difficult to get a quote from him after he died...) that the radiation was not fatal, in a limited dose.

And...the Moon's surface is radioactive???!!!??? That is just plain silly...as is most of what you try to believe....



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Just to add to the whole van allen nonsense, you have to take into account what KIND of radiation you're dealing with. Is it particle? Is it EM? In the case of the Van Allen belts, it's particle radiation. Particle radiation can be blocked without the use of lead or other heavy metals. In fact, heavy metals are undesireable for shielding because they produce the Bremsstrahlung effect. The fact is that the command module was shielded against particle radiation contained in the van allen belts, that's why the astronauts didn't get much exposure; they were protected by their spacecraft. Apollo 12 was the only mission during which a minor solar particle event happened, and although the external sensors registered this event, the internal sensors did not. The reason? Once again, the spacecraft was designed with shielding against particle radiation, the shielding did its job.

By the way, 500 MeV electrons aren't all that bad. It would take 620,000,000,000,000 MeVs per second to light a single 60watt light bulb. Additionally, the charge is only half the story. The flux is the other and if you only have a high MeV without much flux, there's no danger. The dosage calculated in your "documentary" assumes that every single detectable solar event is a major solar event; that's just plain silly. They multiplied the "worst case scenario" figures by the number of detectable events to arrive at an expected exposure level that doesn't even approach reality.



posted on Feb, 17 2008 @ 08:08 PM
link   


Oh, and the Van Allen Belts? The good Dr. van Allen HIMSELF said, before he died (guess it would be more difficult to get a quote from him after he died...) that the radiation was not fatal, in a limited dose.

Doctor van alen discovered the belts as in the location of the belts, anything beyiond that is just another voice of the crowd.




And...the Moon's surface is radioactive???!!!??? That is just plain silly...as is most of what you try to believe....


It seems to me that you did not bother to read the posts in this thread.
I;ll repeat my self even if I hate doing it, just to make my point.


Source 1
www.airynothing.com...


The gamma rays from the Moon do not come from reflected gamma rays of the Sun. Instead, high energy particles (mostly protons) that are travelling very close to the speed of light, called cosmic-rays, continuously slam into the Moon. When these particles collide with the lunar surface, they react with the particles in the Moon's surface, exciting them and generating gamma rays. This process is similar to what goes on in particle accelerators on Earth.


Source 2
science.nasa.gov...


When galactic cosmic rays collide with particles in the lunar surface, they trigger little nuclear reactions that release yet more radiation in the form of neutrons. The lunar surface itself is radioactive!






[edit on 17-2-2008 by pepsi78]



posted on Feb, 17 2008 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


We are talking about X rays, Gamma rays, residual radiation on the moon, and particles hiting directy, and yes it is that bad when you are exposed to radiation and the dosage will add per hour, in fact my previos posts on the mater failed to specify that radiation is a cumulative factor.
Now as I know x rays and gama rays are stoped by thick led shielding.



posted on Feb, 18 2008 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
reply to post by ngchunter
 


We are talking about X rays, Gamma rays, residual radiation on the moon, and particles hiting directy, and yes it is that bad when you are exposed to radiation and the dosage will add per hour, in fact my previos posts on the mater failed to specify that radiation is a cumulative factor.
Now as I know x rays and gama rays are stoped by thick led shielding.


The van allen belts do not trap X rays nor do they trap Gamma rays. If either of those EM sources were sufficient to make apollo impossible "without thick lead shielding" then EVERY manned mission to orbit would be just as impossible. Atmosheric ionization, not the van allen belts, protect earth from energetic photons like x rays and gamma rays. The van allen belt's role is limited strictly to protons and electrons, particle radiation, which as I mentioned was shielded against by the apollo command module's construction. You get about the same amount of x rays and gamma rays in low earth orbit as you do in lunar orbit. Obviously the space station is not made of thick lead, but it is manned by astronauts who stay up for months at a time. You also haven't established the flux of neutron radiation on the lunar surface, let alone the cumulative flux. Please show that it is enough to make short manned missions impossible. According to this, lunar neutron radiation only makes up 20% of the total effective dose, at most.
lunarhps.blogspot.com...
Worthy of consideration for long term stays in order to minimize the dose, but hardly "lethal."



posted on Feb, 18 2008 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by xion329alpha
 


that's funny. please explain then why amatuer ham radio enthusiasts who were listening in to the apollo 11 transmissions had to point their equipment at the moonto pick it up ?



posted on Feb, 18 2008 @ 06:38 PM
link   
pepsi

did you ever find that indpendenty verified evidence of the unmanned probe that was big enough to bring back big muley ?




top topics



 
29
<< 144  145  146    148  149  150 >>

log in

join