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: 156
29
<< 153  154  155    157  158  159 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by _bigbrain_
Since fake LEMs were suspended to that biggest crane with cables, what abilities, what skills, what reflections, what maneuvers could astronauts learn? None.

The same kind of things pilots learn from Flight simulator computers that are on the ground.


Originally posted by _bigbrain_
Since astronauts learnt to fly helicopters, why would they have to fly those stupid fake LEMs?

1. I don't know which astronauts (if any) knew how to fly a helicopter.

2. Flying a helicopter is not the same as flying a LEM. They both react differntly to the pilot's control inputs.


Originally posted by _bigbrain_
Talking about Space Shuttle, it flyes and lands like airplanes, therefore it has nothing to share with LEM, a rocket that must land vertically going backwards.

In space it works like any other thrust-controlled vehicle. That thrust-controlled flight was not tested by "hanging the whole space shuttle from a crane" -- the entire space shuttle sytem was first tested in space. (and its components were tested on the ground).


Originally posted by _bigbrain_
Also LLRV and LLTV have a structure totally different from LEM, they are the contrary of LEM.
LLRV and LLTV are wider than high. LEM is higher than wide.

So what? The LLTV and LLRV reacted VIRTUALLY THE SAME WAY the LEM reacted to the pilots control inputs. That's what made them good vehicles for teaching the astronauts how to fly a LEM. That was purpose of those craft -- teaching.


Originally posted by _bigbrain_
It is no use to fly something totally different from what you will have to fly.

1. It was NOT totally different -- as I said, the LLTV was designed to reacted the same way as the LEM would to the pilots inputs -- it may have looked different and had a different propulsion system, but it a pilot would fly it almost exactly like he would fly the actual Apollo LEM.

2. You must have Ignored my post about the Space Shuttle training Vehicle:
Shuttle Training Aircraft
Using you're logic, it should be no use training Shuttle pilots using this plane, since it looks totally different than the Shuttle.


Originally posted by _bigbrain_
Another illogical thing:

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..

At NASA there was a smart pilot, Stafford, that was able to fly LEM without computer.

I answered this a few posts back, but it seems like you need to have thinngs explain to you a few times before you believe them: Stafford took manual control, but that's NOT the same as saying the guidance computer was not helping him keep the LEM level...The guidance computer still controlled the Reaction Control Thrusters while Stafford had manual control of the "stick".

I'll explain it one more time...Modern Jets (even airliners) have computers that make corrections to the wing flaps and tail rudder many times every second. These computer corrections are what keeps the plane flying; without them modern jets cannot fly. These computers STILL remain actively doing their job even while the pilot is MANUALLY controlling the plane. That's the analogy to this Stafford story.

You keep coming back with the same arguments without any new evidence rebutting my responses.

I don't need to deny your ignorance anymore since you have lost all of your credibilily with others.
I'm ending this game.




[edit on 3/25/2008 by Soylent Green Is People]




posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
...
I answered this a few posts back, but it seems like you need to have thinngs explain to you a few times before you believe them: Stafford took manual control, but that's NOT the same as saying the guidance computer was not helping him keep the LEM level...The guidance computer still controlled the Reaction Control Thrusters while Stafford had manual control of the "stick".
...


I need to deny your ignorance of the facts:

www.nasa.gov...



As the two men were getting close to the moon's surface, Armstrong saw they were nearing a rocky area. He DISREGARDED the LM's automatic landing system and switched to manual control during the last moments of descent. Armstrong landed the LM on a safer, more suitable spot and was able to report, "Houston, Tranquility Base here...the Eagle has landed."
Armstrong later said his practice flights in the LLTVs gave him the confidence to OVERRIDE the automatic flight control system and control Eagle manually during that epic Apollo 11 mission.


These are words of NASA: Armstrong excluded the help of computer and flew LEM manually as it was a helicopter.

These words come from people that have exaggerated, that have sent men to the moon 6 times in 3 years roving there with some moon buggies.
These words come from swaggerers.

And often swaggerers say brags.
How could Armstrong fly LEM without the help of computer?
He could not react in time to oppose gravity forces that made LEM to fall off in all direction at 360 degrees.

However I think that even today we have not technology - sensors able to understand vertical attitude, powerful software able to send fastly the right informations, fastest mechanical devices - to build a rocket that can land going backwards.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by _bigbrain_
 


you are confusing yourself :

the Apollo LEM was equiped the multiple systems

one can be equated to a " fly by wire " control - which ` simply put ` divoced the polots controls from the main rocket gimball and attitude thrusters

simply put - this means that the craft would maintain atttitude AUTOMATICALLY leaving the pilot or auto pilot to control direction of descent

the second can be equated to an " auto pilot " which simply put attempt to maintain a pre programed course

it was this second function - the " auto pilot " which was attempting to land the LEM at a location Armstrong could see was unsitible

that ` auto pilot ` was what he diabled

this allowed armstrong to determine the COURSE of the LEM

how IT FLEW and the attitude adjustments thst kept it vetrical - were STILL controled by the ` fly by rire ` system



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by _bigbrain_
 


'bigbrain', you still refuse to understand, and it is a shame!

What was actually disconnected was the landing computer providing guidance, on Apollo 11. THIS, because, the planned landing site was deemed too rocky once seen by the pilot flying, that being Armstrong.

Let's compare two things...in an airplane we have flight guidance, it can be a 'single cue' (we call them 'V bars') or it can be 'dual cue'...a vertical and horizontal line, in the ADI, that the computer shows to 'cue' us which attitude to fly, based on the program that is curently engaged.

Back to Apollo 11...Armstrong could see the landing site that the 'cues' were taking them to, and knew it wouldn't suffice. He used the controls, the same ones he had been using all along, following the 'guidance cues', but now he was low enough to actually see the terrain!!! He translated horizontally to find a safer spot to land. Of course, he knew fuel was limited, and if a good spot was not found, he would have aborted back to orbit, this is very well understood. His brilliiance was in sticking with it and finding a good spot to land, while preserving the mission.

Truly, 'bigbrain', you need to study more....or go learn to fly real airplanes, or spend the money to rent simulator and and instructor to learn stuff!! Don't just spout nonsense, it helps no one, and it wastes our time here at ATS.

[adding] A thought occured, I don't know where you physically are, bigbrain, but I have some free time. If it worked out, I would be happy to come to you and meet you personally and tutor you. It would be worth it to save at least one person from ignorance. I've taught many people to fly, not only from the beginning to their Private Pilot license, but also their Mulit-Engine Ratings, their Commercial Ratings and their Instrument Ratings...and, their Airline Transport Pilot licenses as well. Send a U2U if you wish, or just tell us where you live here in the thread....

[edit on 26-3-2008 by weedwhacker]

[second edit] I am only unavailable in July, 2008. Going on a cruise to the Baltic....

[edit on 26-3-2008 by weedwhacker]



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 04:10 PM
link   
I would like to change the discussion for a moment.

Look at my drawing:




You know that horizon is a line slightly curve that is in the intersection point of 2 or more parallel lines.

This picture is fake because the real horizon is higher.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by _bigbrain_
 
I'm glad you're moving on to a different subject.

However, that picture does not prove anything. The picture would be meaningful if the Moon's surface was a flat plain (see picture "A" below), but it isn't. The Moon has dips and hills, highlands and lowlands.

For example, The LEM in this photo may be on a highland, and the land beyond the visible horizon could "fall away" into a lowland (see picture "B" below).





[edit on 3/27/2008 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by MickeyDee
 


I agree totally that there was a landing on the moon, but i would also like to say that I believe what they found up there was never captured on any video, photograph or any other recording.

Sorry i have'nt much time tonight to link any of the stories covering this but if you look up the conversations between astronaut's and NASA from home then this would suggest they found a lot more of anything you see in the pictures they mediate.
Also the apparent UFO sighting's as seen by Buzz Aldrin and Neil armstrong where one of them say's something to the effect of '' WOW, I can't believe what im seeing there are two em just hovering in the sky'' and when NASA ask they confirm a UFO and that there technology seems far superior to theres.
Also the only Civilian man to ever go into space, a Geologist, bah gonna have to come back to this convo with names etc but he also seems amazed by something and NASA start speaking code to him
.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by _bigbrain_
 


bigbrain....ummm....where do I start?

You showed us a picture, of the LEM, taken on the Moon. THEN, I'm guessing, it's hard to tell, you try to show the horizon in the BACKGROUND and this proves what, exactly???

OK, it's an alien backdrop....oops, bad choice of words, didn't mean to imply a 'backdrop' in the Hollywood sense....let me rephrase...it's an alien landscape. IN this instance, a LUNARscape...moonscape, if you wish.

See? the backgrond hills do not have to be perfectly flat, just as background hills here on Earth don't have to perfectly flat, or aligned with your photo....

The LEM could land on a slope...not a steep slope, obviously, but a few degreees was well within design parameters.

Now, have you ever taken a picture? Did you ever tilt the camera a little, and did the shot look funny?

Do you know that lots of pics were taken, but only the 'good' ones were released for publicity purposes????

Please, please, please take this last chance and try to learn, It is important that you learn, it is why we struggle so hard to try to educate, here on ATS! We care, and don't want to lose another through the cracks of misinformation!!!

Best, Tim/WW



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Have you thought I would talk about fake images?
Wrong.


www.nasa.gov...




The basic idea of the LLRVs was to give pilots a platform that simulated the descent profile of the lunar module as it approached the moon's surface. A gimbaled jet engine with the exhaust nozzle facing the ground supported 5/6ths of the LLRV's weight to compensate for the moon's weaker gravitational force. Small rockets supported the remaining 1/6th of the vehicle's weight and provided controlled ascent, descent, and horizontal movements.


Also LEM could be built that way.
A gimbaled jet engine with the exhaust nozzle facing the ground would have been able to support 5/6ths of the LEM weight to compensate for the moon's weaker gravitational force.
Small rockets would have been able to support the remaining 1/6th of the vehicle's weight and provide controlled ascent, descent, and horizontal movements AS IF LEM WAS ON THE MOON.

Cables of Langley crane would have been able to save pilots in case of danger.

Why didn't NASA engineers test the real Lunar Lander at Langley crane?





[edit on 28-3-2008 by _bigbrain_]


jra

posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matteredminds
I agree totally that there was a landing on the moon, but i would also like to say that I believe what they found up there was never captured on any video, photograph or any other recording.


But how would that be possible when there was a constant audio and video transmission throughout the mission?


Sorry i have'nt much time tonight to link any of the stories covering this but if you look up the conversations between astronaut's and NASA from home then this would suggest they found a lot more of anything you see in the pictures they mediate.


I have yet to read or hear any conversations between the astronauts and NASA regarding UFO's or anything of that matter. Beside the incident I mention further down.


Also the apparent UFO sighting's as seen by Buzz Aldrin and Neil armstrong where one of them say's something to the effect of '' WOW, I can't believe what im seeing there are two em just hovering in the sky'' and when NASA ask they confirm a UFO and that there technology seems far superior to theres.


The only UFO sighting that Aldrin said he saw, happened on the way to the Moon. He does not believe it was of extra terrestrial origin though. Simply an unidentified object. He says he is 99.9% sure that it was one of the panels from the S-IVB stage of the rocket.

Here is an illustration and an actual photo showing the panels. The panels would drift along with the spacecraft until the midcourse correction, and then it would drift further and further away from that point on.

It's unfortunate that people take what Aldrin said out of context and put there own spin on it.


so the only Civilian man to ever go into space, a Geologist, bah gonna have to come back to this convo with names etc but he also seems amazed by something and NASA start speaking code to him
.


Harrison Schmitt, I believe, is the name you're looking for. But please do come back and elaborate on this, if you can.



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Who is able to confute my last reasoning?



Also LEM could be built that way.
A gimbaled jet engine with the exhaust nozzle facing the ground would have been able to support 5/6ths of the LEM weight to compensate for the moon's weaker gravitational force.
Small rockets would have been able to support the remaining 1/6th of the vehicle's weight and provide controlled ascent, descent, and horizontal movements AS IF LEM WAS ON THE MOON".

Cables of Langley crane would have been able to save pilots in case of danger.

Why didn't NASA engineers test the real Lunar Lander at Langley crane?


My answer:
"Because NASA engineers were not able to build such a rocket, capable to land going backwards vertically like helicopters".





[edit on 29-3-2008 by _bigbrain_]



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by _bigbrain_
 


Hey bigbrain, thanks for the posts...

It is puzzling to me, since you posted that NASA link about the LLRV, but you still think it's impossible? What will it take to convince you?

And, would you take a moment, step back, and consider the fact of soft landings by unmanned vehicles, from both the USA and (then) USSR back in the 1960s. If unmanned ships could land, then one under intelligent control by a human would certainly be eminently reasonable and doable.

Hope you think about, and do some more research!

WW



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
...

And, would you take a moment, step back, and consider the fact of soft landings by unmanned vehicles, from both the USA and (then) USSR back in the 1960s.

...


You are trying to avoid the logic of my reasoning.

You are trying to answer with another question.

Stay on my reasoning and try to confute its logic.


jra

posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by _bigbrain_
You are trying to avoid the logic of my reasoning.


What logic?


You are trying to answer with another question.


Umm... No he wasn't.

Out of the four links I posted on the previous page. This one I really suggest you read. It talks about the LM in regards to its computers and as well as its stability. I'll also quote a paragraph from it as well.


In fact, the lunar module was essentially "fly-by-wire". The pilot's hand controller was not usually directly wired into the engine gimbal or RCS system, although it could be. Most often it simply told the computer which direction the LM should move -- left, right, forward, or backwards. The computer adjusted the gimbal angle to produce the desired lateral motion. The pilot was not required to manually maintain the LM's balance.

The problem of shifting centers of mass in rockets had been solved by the 1940s. It's simply ridiculous to suppose that the lunar module provides any special difficulty. In fact, we'll see below that it's actually easier to keep the lunar module from tumbling than it is to control a common cylindrical rocket.



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by _bigbrain_
Have you thought I would talk about fake images?
Wrong.


www.nasa.gov...




The basic idea of the LLRVs was to give pilots a platform that simulated the descent profile of the lunar module as it approached the moon's surface. A gimbaled jet engine with the exhaust nozzle facing the ground supported 5/6ths of the LLRV's weight to compensate for the moon's weaker gravitational force. Small rockets supported the remaining 1/6th of the vehicle's weight and provided controlled ascent, descent, and horizontal movements.


Also LEM could be built that way.
A gimbaled jet engine with the exhaust nozzle facing the ground would have been able to support 5/6ths of the LEM weight to compensate for the moon's weaker gravitational force.
Small rockets would have been able to support the remaining 1/6th of the vehicle's weight and provide controlled ascent, descent, and horizontal movements AS IF LEM WAS ON THE MOON.

Cables of Langley crane would have been able to save pilots in case of danger.

Why didn't NASA engineers test the real Lunar Lander at Langley crane?



Why didn't NASA engineers build real LEMs with the same characteristics of LLRVs and why didn't they test them at Langley crane?

Answer this question, please, if you can.


jra

posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by _bigbrain_
Why didn't NASA engineers build real LEMs with the same characteristics of LLRVs


Make an LM with with a turbofan engine to be tested on Earth? I don't think that engine could lift the LM. The General Electric CF-700-2V turbofan engine put out 4,200 lbf (19 kN) of thrust. And the LLRV only weighed 3,775 lb (1,712 kg). Compare that to the LM's 32,399 lb (14,696 kg).

Besides what would be the point of testing the LM with a turbofan engine on Earth when it's going to be using a rocket in space/moon? What would they learn from that exactly?


and why didn't they test them at Langley crane?


Because, for the hundredth time. The crane wasn't designed to test the LM itself or any "backwards landing rockets". It was a simulator for the astronauts to learn things for themselves.


Answer this question, please, if you can.


We have many times already. And please, read that link I posted.



posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Make an LM with a turbofan engine to be tested on Earth? I don't think that engine could lift the LM. The General Electric CF-700-2V turbofan engine put out 4,200 lbf (19 kN) of thrust. And the LLRV only weighed 3,775 lb (1,712 kg). Compare that to the LM's 32,399 lb (14,696 kg).

Besides what would be the point of testing the LM with a turbofan engine on Earth when it's going to be using a rocket in space/moon? What would they learn from that exactly?



It is logic that they had to test LM with its rocket engine on the earth before landing it on the moon.
They could do it because LM weighed 14,696 kg – 10,518 kg (propellants mass) = 4,178 kg
Rocket engine thrust was 4,500 kg.

With a small increase of rocket engine power they could test LM at Langley crane easily without wasting money in LLRVs and LLTVs totally different from LM in the shape, in the structure, in the engine and, above all, in the distribution of masses.

As you said: “What would they learn from that exactly?”

Why have they used LLRVs and LLTVs instead of LMs?



posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by _bigbrain_
 


bigbrain, it is a very simple fact that maybe is getting lost in translation, since we are unable to sit down, face-to-face and thoroughly explain some common misconceptions that keep cropping up....

The LEM (or better, LM) was NEVER designed to operate in an atmosphere. This is a basic fact that you must accept before you can procede to understand in more detail.

The hypergolic fuels used in the LM's main Descent Engine, and the Ascent Engine, and in the RCS thrusters is best used in a vacuum. It is a 'pure' reaction of two different chemicals, chems that can be stored much more simply than the primary fuels used for an Earth launch, LOX and LH2...as you no doubt know, Oxygen and Hydrogen are gases at room temperature. By chilling them down sufficiently, they will become liquid.

LOX has a 'boiling point' of -183C...so to remain liquid, it must be kept colder than that. LH2 will 'boil' at -253C, and is also kept under more pressure, due to volatility.

Spaceships need a lot of energy to launch against the Earth's gravity well, and to accelerate sufficiently to reach an orbit, or to further accelerate and reach escape velocity. The controlled mixing of LOX and LH2 provides an incredible amount of energy...the Germans used it, Robert Goddard of the USA used it, and NASA used it, still uses it to this day on Shuttle. Shuttle ALSO has supplemental SRBs...because part of the problem of launching from Earth is...the weight of the propellants you need IN ORDER to provide the thrust you need to begin the process....

Whew! That is a lot of propellant...and it takes a lot of heavy valves, pipes, conduits and insulation and other equipment to maintain those cold temperatures so your fuel won't 'boil' away before you can use it. Hence, the invention of the hypergollic compounds!!!!!

The hypergolics (look up hydrazine on Wiki to get started on your information journey) do not work in an atmosphere, as I mentioned already. BUT, once in a vacuum, they are lighter in weight, relatively easier to store (just need pressure containers) and absolutely foolproof, one needs only valves to open, the chemicals mix, and reaction occurs.

One more thing, unlike the flame you see from the LOX/LH2 reaction in dramatic launches from Earth, the hypergolics produce virtually no visible flame in a vacuum. That's one reason (of very, very many not based on good science) why some people continue to cry 'fake' when looking at old Apollo Lunar archive footage.

I know this got a little long, this post, but I'd like to think it helped, even a little bit, to understand why the LM could not be tested in the Earth's atmosphere.

To re-cap...the hypergolic engines do not work in an atmosphere. AND, even if they could, there is no way for the LM to carry enough fuel, as it was designed, to operate within the Earth's gravity well, cosidering how much 'deeper' it is than the Moon's!!!

Really, really hope this makes things a little clearer for you, brain, we are trying to help!

Best, WW



posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by _bigbrain_
...It is logic that they had to test LM with its rocket engine on the earth before landing it on the moon...

Then you could ask the same question about the Space Shuttle....and before you say once again that the shuttle lands like a plane, I KNOW THAT. I'm not talking about the "lands like a plane" portion of the shuttle...I'm talking about the parts of the shuttle that lets it maneuver while in space.

When the shuttle is in orbit its plane-like wings and tail are useless. In orbit, the shuttle uses small rocket thrusters located in the top rear and the nose of the shuttle. Using your argument, they should have tested these maneuvering thrusters by hanging the shuttle from the gantry at Langley...but they didn't. And they didn't do that because the shuttle is designed to work in space and would act VERY DIFFERENTLY hung from the crane -- so differently that the test would be practically worthless.

The very first time the shuttle's orbiting thrusters maneuvered the whole shuttle was on the shuttle's first trip to space -- there was no test of the entire assembled shuttle done on Earth. They did so many other tests of all of the shuttle's parts on Earth that they were confident that they would all work together when they got to space.

The same thing is true for the LEM...they did so many other tests of all of the LEM's component parts on Earth that they were confident that they would all work together when they got into the Space. And then they did 2 full scale tests in space before they landed on the Moon.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
...

The LEM (or better, LM) was NEVER designed to operate in an atmosphere.

The hypergolic fuels used in the LM's main Descent Engine, and the Ascent Engine, and in the RCS thrusters is best used in a vacuum. It is a 'pure' reaction of two different chemicals, chems that can be stored much more simply than the primary fuels used for an Earth launch, LOX and LH2...as you no doubt know, Oxygen and Hydrogen are gases at room temperature. By chilling them down sufficiently, they will become liquid.

LOX has a 'boiling point' of -183C...so to remain liquid, it must be kept colder than that. LH2 will 'boil' at -253C, and is also kept under more pressure, due to volatility.
...


What are you saying? A lot of nonsense.

en.wikipedia.org...




Descent stage propellants: N2O4/Aerozine 50 (UDMH/N2H4)



These propellants are stable at normal temperature, they don't give any problem.

NASA swaggerers that sent men to the moon 6 times in 3 years would show LM at Langley crane landing going backwards, but they were not able.




To learn lunar landing techniques, astronauts practiced in the Lunar Landing Research Vehicle (LLRV), a flying vehicle that simulated the Lunar Module on earth. A 200-foot-tall, 400-foot-long gantry structure was constructed at NASA Langley Research Center; the LLRV was suspended in this structure from a crane, and "piloted" by moving the crane. (The facility is now known as the Impact Dynamics Research Facility, and is used for aircraft crash tests.)




Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
...

The same thing is true for the LEM...they did so many other tests of all of the LEM's component parts on Earth that they were confident that they would all work together when they got into the Space.
...



You are saying a lot of nonsense too.

You can test component parts of a certain machine 1,000 times, but only when you test the machine really - in our case landing LM on the Earth, in fact you can't test LM in orbit: how can you land in orbit? - you will see if it works or not.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 153  154  155    157  158  159 >>

log in

join