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: 161
29
<< 158  159  160    162  163  164 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Big-Brain

Originally posted by ngchunter
...
By the way, your picture, contrary to its name, is not from Apollo 11. Nice lie, but I can clearly see a lunar rover. There was no lunar rover on Apollo 11 so it must be from a different mission with different terrain that may or may not have been vulnerable to the same change in albedo from the engine blast.



Hey, this is Apollo 11 lunar module Eagle



I don't see any dust.


If you don't see any dust (though there is still some dust left), then you're only proving that I am right. Why would the descent engine generate MORE dust when the videos of the landing clearly show the dust being blown away, which is why the surrounding area is lighter in the Selene photo - the outer layer of dust was blown away, revealing a lighter patch of rock and dust underneath. See this photo taken directly under the descent engine - notice how reflective the lunar rock is.



Thanks for validating and affirming my evidence. By the way, you still ignored my point that what you're asking for is ridiculous: the identification of lighter terrain relative to the surrounding area in a radius half a kilometer wide from a photo taken from the ground. Furthermore, in your photo we can't possibly be seeing that far into the distance; it's clear in the ORIGINAL high resolution photo (which you convienently failed to provide) that we're looking "up-hill" in this photograph and consequently the horizon is much closer than half a kilometer. Thanks for finally providing a true apollo 11 image instead of lying to us, but I'm afraid I still have to call "deception" here for providing a photo that could not actually prove or disprove your point .




Now this is getting interesting, because looking off to the southwest of the landing site, in this image taken just moments after the one you posted, you can clearly see how the terrain in the far distance is less reflective than the terrain closer to the camera.



As always, if you want the complete truth you must go to the original source images. I wonder why hoax believers never refer to the originals? And once again Big-brain, you've still completely ignored the fact that these images were taken prior to lunar liftoff, and the ascent engine would definately have contributed to some or all of the effect seen by Selene.

*One more thing... I suspect you'll claim the "darker" terrain in the background is proof of a "painted backdrop," so before you can go there, here's a red/blue stereograph of the same area taken with the image I showed you and the image taken immediately after it. You'll note that there is no "flat" backdrop present. The distant terrain is really there.



[edit on 13-4-2008 by ngchunter]




posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra
...
The part you highlighted helps to prove what I've been saying. It says it "simulated the lunar environment that produced LEM vehicle dynamics", which helps to "train the Apollo astronauts". That does not help in testing of the actual LM at all.
...


Surely NASA's braggarts have forgotten to “lose” that very interesting document.

You have not read well that document



Thrust of the main engine is controlled by either pilot with his left hand using the collective pitch levers.
Weight of the vehicle is 12,000 pounds, of which 3300 pounds was hydrogen peroxide fuel, giving a flight duration of slightly less than three minutes.



At page 6 you can read:



Experiences gained by the Apollo astronauts on the Lunar Landing Research Facility indicated that it was possible to successfully master the complicated skills that were required to land the LEM on the Moon. Both Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin trained there FOR MANY HOURS. Only when they successfully mastered skills necessary TO FLY THE LEM would NASA approve plans for their historic first landing on the Moon in July 1969.


Have you read carefully?

Weight of LEM suspended from Langley crane was 12,000 pounds, of which 3300 pounds was hydrogen peroxide fuel, giving a flight duration of slightly less than three minutes.

Armstrong and Aldrin flew LEM really. LEM was not a mock one.

Since Armstrong and Aldrin trained there for many hours and a flight duration was slightly less than three minutes, the two astronauts made many flights.

Why is not there any video that shows LEM flying with a real alight engine suspended from the crane?

Because NASA's braggarts were not able to build such a rocket, capable to land going backwards.


That document proves in plain evidence that you never went to the moon.



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Big-Brain
 


OK, I hit a button and lost what I was just writing?

ANYWAY, if this doubles, sorry.

Allright, it's my fault, I'm responsible, and should be sent to the gulag and water-boarded because it was me....I suggested the word 'braggart', because I was having trouble with 'swaggerer', such an awkward word to have to say in one's ..

Back on topic, in response to BB's post.....huh?

You always find great snippets to support what is being proven over and over again, that NASA trained and trained and experimented and experimented over and over and over and over to ensure success, and then they trained and trained some more, and tested and tested.

BUT, of course, all of this experience and work paid off, didn't it? Huge success, at great risk, and no small amount of skill....

WW



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Big-Brain



Thrust of the main engine is controlled by either pilot with his left hand using the collective pitch levers.
Weight of the vehicle is 12,000 pounds, of which 3300 pounds was hydrogen peroxide fuel, giving a flight duration of slightly less than three minutes.



At page 6 you can read:



Experiences gained by the Apollo astronauts on the Lunar Landing Research Facility indicated that it was possible to successfully master the complicated skills that were required to land the LEM on the Moon. Both Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin trained there FOR MANY HOURS. Only when they successfully mastered skills necessary TO FLY THE LEM would NASA approve plans for their historic first landing on the Moon in July 1969.


Have you read carefully?

Weight of LEM suspended from Langley crane was 12,000 pounds, of which 3300 pounds was hydrogen peroxide fuel, giving a flight duration of slightly less than three minutes.

Armstrong and Aldrin flew LEM really. LEM was not a mock one.

This is getting really irritating, I really have to bite my tongue here to maintain any sense of civility. You've obviously done absolutely no research on what would distinguish a mock LEM from a real LEM. Tell us BB, what kind of fuel did the real LEM run on? UDMH and Hydrazine, NOT hydrogen peroxide! How heavy was the real LEM? 32,300 lbs, NOT 15,300 lbs! About 28,000lbs of that was fuel, which is why it could vastly outperform the mock LEM your article refers to! All of these figures and facts show that you're making an obvious distortion of the truth, it was not a real LEM! In fact, all of these figures and facts hurt your case the more that you post them!



That document proves in plain evidence that you never went to the moon.


Actually it shows that you lack any critical thinking skills, or you're just trying to put a lie out there to see who will believe it.



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter

This is getting really irritating...
...
it shows that you lack any critical thinking skills...
...


Hey, the truth is hurting your feelings.

I think your words are not very polite.
 
But I could say the same thing about your skills. LEM used at Langley crane weighed 12,000 lb. Why have you calculated 15,300 lb?

Its weight was 1/3 of real LM in order to train Armstrong and Aldrin in a situation close to that on the moon.

Have you read in that document that they talk about LEM as if it was a helicopter: pedals to control yaw, levers to control pitch and roll.

That Langley Crane’s LEM, listen to me carefully, didn’t have any computer on board”.
That LEM flew like helicopters, without computer.

Computer guidance system was invented in a later time to give credibility to that horrible, ugly rocket that was used to make film of moon landing at 20th Century Fox or at Disney Studio”.

Someone could ask why NASA’s braggarts built a rocket so incredible, so ugly, so non-rocket. My answer is that they wanted to create a rocket that looked like a mysterious, enigmatic, puzzling vehicle to enchant, to confuse, to mask the hoax.



Originally posted by ngchunter
...
Actually it shows that you lack any critical thinking skills, or you're just trying to put a lie out there to see who will believe it.
...


You are just irritated, but the “lie” of which you are talking is written in that document NASA's braggarts have forgotten to lose.

At page 5 you can read:




The LEM is on the site but the main engine and some of the controls have been removed.



Dear old friend Swimmer, where are you?
That document proves NASA's braggarts never sent men to the moon.



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Big-Brain

Originally posted by ngchunter

This is getting really irritating...
...
it shows that you lack any critical thinking skills...
...


Hey, the truth is hurting your feelings.

I think your words are not very polite.

I'm the one with "hurt feelings"? Yet you're the one complaining? Hmmm...

 
But I could say the same thing about your skills. LEM used at Langley crane weighed 12,000 lb. Why have you calculated 15,300 lb?

There you go with those fantastic critical thinking skills again... 12,000 dry weight+3,300 of fuel = 15,300!


Its weight was 1/3 of real LM in order to train Armstrong and Aldrin in a situation close to that on the moon.

LMFAO! Oh so they just made it weigh 1/3rd less to simulate 1/6th gravity huh? I suggest a course in basic physics before you try to continue this discussion BB. Objects will fall at the same speed REGARDLESS of their weight. Simply making something lighter does not contribute to the simulation of low gravity. Furthermore, would you care to explain how it's possible to cut an object down to 1/3rd its weight without sacrificing the integrity of the object? It was a MOCK UP, that's why it weighed so much less than the real thing!


Have you read in that document that they talk about LEM as if it was a helicopter: pedals to control yaw, levers to control pitch and roll.

That Langley Crane’s LEM, listen to me carefully, didn’t have any computer on board”.
That LEM flew like helicopters, without computer.

This section is unintelligible and completely off point. If it didn't have a computer, then how was it NOT a mock-up? Ever think of that?


Computer guidance system was invented in a later time to give credibility to that horrible, ugly rocket that was used to make film of moon landing at 20th Century Fox or at Disney Studio”.

You didn't think this through very far, did you? Care to explain why a guidance system would be necessary for a simulator designed to simulate a manual final approach?


Someone could ask why NASA’s braggarts built a rocket so incredible, so ugly, so non-rocket.

It's called functionality, and it isn't required to be pretty to your arbitrary standards.


My answer is that they wanted to create a rocket that looked like a mysterious, enigmatic, puzzling vehicle to enchant, to confuse, to mask the hoax.


It's only mysterious to those living in ignorance. It also doesn't make sense why you would design something so complex for a hoax: the more complex the harder it is to make your miniature models look exactly like the full scale version to the point that not even an expert can tell the difference. Thanks for providing more circumstantial proof that we went.



Originally posted by ngchunter
...
Actually it shows that you lack any critical thinking skills, or you're just trying to put a lie out there to see who will believe it.
...


You are just irritated, but the “lie” of which you are talking is written in that document NASA's braggarts have forgotten to lose.

I said I was irritated, it's very irritating to go over the same point again and again and yet you still don't get it. The weight of the mock-up LEM is nowhere near that of the real LEM, proving that it is, in fact, A MOCK UP!! You still don't understand even that VERY simple point! That kind of ignorance on your part is incredibly irritating to those who have tried for days to help you deny ignorance.



At page 5 you can read:




The LEM is on the site but the main engine and some of the controls have been removed.



Dear old friend Swimmer, where are you?
That document proves NASA's braggarts never sent men to the moon.

Actually it proves it was a simplified mockup, and they're explaining which parts were ommitted completely for the sake of the simulator! They still do that today with the space shuttle simulators. By your "logic" (my apologies to the word "logic"), that also means the shuttle is a hoax!



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   
You have not read well that document



Thrust of the main engine is controlled by either pilot with his left hand using the collective pitch levers.
Weight of the vehicle is 12,000 pounds, of which 3300 pounds was hydrogen peroxide fuel, giving a flight duration of slightly less than three minutes.



At page 6 you can read:



Experiences gained by the Apollo astronauts on the Lunar Landing Research Facility indicated that it was possible to successfully master the complicated skills that were required to land the LEM on the Moon. Both Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin trained there FOR MANY HOURS. Only when they successfully mastered skills necessary TO FLY THE LEM would NASA approve plans for their historic first landing on the Moon in July 1969.



"Weight of the vehicle is 12,000 pounds, of which 3300 pounds was hydrogen peroxide fuel"

12,000 pounds is total weight.

"Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin trained there FOR MANY HOURS. Only when they successfully mastered skills necessary TO FLY THE LEM would NASA approve plans for their historic first landing on the Moon in July 1969".

Armstrong and Aldrin flew really that LEM for many hours with many real 3 minutes flights to master skills necessary to fly the real LEM on the moon.

It was not a mock LEM but a smaller one that could fly 3 minutes without computer.

That is a biggest lie NASA's braggarts have forgotten to erase.

I'm very sorry but I'm winning.



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Big-Brain
You have not read well that document



Thrust of the main engine is controlled by either pilot with his left hand using the collective pitch levers.
Weight of the vehicle is 12,000 pounds, of which 3300 pounds was hydrogen peroxide fuel, giving a flight duration of slightly less than three minutes.



At page 6 you can read:



Experiences gained by the Apollo astronauts on the Lunar Landing Research Facility indicated that it was possible to successfully master the complicated skills that were required to land the LEM on the Moon. Both Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin trained there FOR MANY HOURS. Only when they successfully mastered skills necessary TO FLY THE LEM would NASA approve plans for their historic first landing on the Moon in July 1969.



"Weight of the vehicle is 12,000 pounds, of which 3300 pounds was hydrogen peroxide fuel"

12,000 pounds is total weight.

My mistake, it's even less like the real LEM than I made it out to be. Congratulations on pointing out a mistake of mine in my favor.


"Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin trained there FOR MANY HOURS. Only when they successfully mastered skills necessary TO FLY THE LEM would NASA approve plans for their historic first landing on the Moon in July 1969".

Armstrong and Aldrin flew really that LEM for many hours with many real 3 minutes flights to master skills necessary to fly the real LEM on the moon.

It was not a mock LEM but a smaller one that could fly 3 minutes without computer.

If it was smaller, it was not the same as the REAL LEM! Why is this so hard for you to understand?? You were probably born in the age of personal computers so I know this is hard for you to understand, but it's quite possible to move a crane around without a computer's help.


That is a biggest lie NASA's braggarts have forgotten to erase.

I'm very sorry but I'm winning.

If by winning you mean correcting the only mistake that I made, which had weakened my argument until you corrected it, then you're absolutely right, but that's an "interesting" definition of "winning." Thanks for helping my argument that this was not the real LEM. Care to explain why your "real LEM" ran on hydrogen peroxide fuel, not hydrazine? This is the LLTV, the mock LEM your article is talking about. Does this look like a real LEM to you??



Here's the schematic for it, note that it corresponds to the same fuel type your article refers to, not to hydrazine.



You've completely failed to produce any evidence that the LLTV was a real LEM.

The one thing the LLTV/LLRV project DOES prove is that you CAN land a vehicle "going backwards" -
www.dfrc.nasa.gov...

[edit on 14-4-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:54 PM
link   
You must read that document carefully.

Langley Crane LEM had H-34 helicopter cabin:

www.youtube.com...

Therefore that training LEM is this:

www.nasa.gov...

You can read:



The cab of the LEM can accomodate two persons at the same time. A common instrument panel is mounted between the two pilots.



Originally posted by ngchunter
...
If it was smaller, it was not the same as the REAL LEM! Why is this so hard for you to understand?? You were probably born in the age of personal computers so I know this is hard for you to understand, but it's quite possible to move a crane around without a computer's help.
...


You are wrong. In that document they say:



The Lunar Landing Research Facility is an A-frame steel structure 400 feet long and 230 feet high. Associated with this facility is a full-scale Apollo Lunar Excursion Module or LEM.


That full scale LEM was used by Armstrong and Aldrin to master future landings going backwards on the moon.



Simulation of lunar gravity is achieved by employing an over. partial-suspension system which provides a lifting force by means of cables acting through the vehicle's center of gravity so as to effectively cancel all but one sixth of earth's gravitational force.


Huston, we have a problem:

How could Armstrong and Aldrin test LEM if it was suspended to that big crane which provided a lifting force by means of cables acting through the vehicle's center of gravity so as to effectively cancel all but one sixth of earth's gravitational force?

Cables were always in traction to cancel all but one sixth of earth's gravitational force, therefore LEM was always held in balance.

Huston, we have a biggest problem:

On the moon Armstrong and Aldrin would not have found any cable.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 03:30 PM
link   



Does this look like a real LEM to you?



That's the original simulator, which used the cab of a helicopter, but the real LEM doesn't have seats, the crew must stand throughout the flight. To make it more like the real LEM they later replaced the cab with a standing version that only had room for a single person, seen here:



And here it is lifted up on the crane in its "stand-up" form, the very same form whose schematic I posted for you yesterday:



Did it ever occur to you that if the document said it used a helicopter's cabin that it could not be the real LEM? These pictures have proven my point. What you're talking about is an earlier version of the very same craft I was referring to. It used hydrogen peroxide as fuel, not hydrazine, it was not a real LEM in any way, shape, or form.



Irrelevant, I already provided a video of the later version of the LLRV/LLTV free flying and landing without the aid of ANY cables. Just because you CAN simulate low gravity using cables does not mean that it's impossible to land vertically without cables. Your speculation does not overrule my video already posted yesterday. Here, I'll post it again for your convienence. You may have missed it the first time, so here it is yet again.
www.dfrc.nasa.gov...

[edit on 15-4-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by Big-Brain

On the moon Armstrong and Aldrin would not have found any cable.


Irrelevant, I already provided a video of the later version of the LLRV/LLTV free flying and landing without the aid of ANY cables. Just because you CAN simulate low gravity using cables does not mean that it's impossible to land vertically without cables. Your speculation does not overrule my video already posted yesterday. Here, I'll post it again for your convienence. You may have missed it the first time, so here it is yet again.
www.dfrc.nasa.gov...



IRRELEVANT?

Armstrong and Aldrin flew that LEM for many hours in order to learn how to land going backwards held with cables acting through the vehicle's center of gravity so as to effectively cancel all but one sixth of earth's gravitational force

and you say: irrelevant

and you tell me to look at a fakest video that also children can understand it is sham, bogus, spurious, forged and counterfeit ?





[edit on 15-4-2008 by Big-Brain]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Big-Brain


IRRELEVANT?

Armstrong and Aldrin flew that LEM for many hours in order to learn how to land going backwards held with cables acting through the vehicle's center of gravity so as to effectively cancel all but one sixth of earth's gravitational force

and you say: irrelevant

and you tell me to look at a fakest video that also children can understand it is sham, bogus, spurious, forged and counterfeit ?

Yes, I say irrelevant. What are you trying to suggest BB? Stop huffing and puffing and make a point. It's irrelevant to whether or not it's possible to land a craft "going backwards." I posted a video of them landing a more advanced sim for apollo "going backwards." Just because you CAN simulate low gravity using cables does not mean that it's impossible to do the same thing for real in real low gravity, nor does it mean that it's impossible to simulate it via other methods as well. The mere presence of cables on a simulator doesn't prove anything. What the pictures do prove, however, is that that simulator was NOT a real LEM. It merely tried to simulate certain aspects of a real LEM.



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Big-Brain...How could Armstrong and Aldrin test LEM if it was suspended to that big crane which provided a lifting force by means of cables acting through the vehicle's center of gravity so as to effectively cancel all but one sixth of earth's gravitational force?

Cables were always in traction to cancel all but one sixth of earth's gravitational force, therefore LEM was always held in balance.

Huston, we have a biggest problem:

On the moon Armstrong and Aldrin would not have found any cable....

You are absolutely right, and have yet again help us make our argument against you. They did NOT test the LEM with the Langley crane because it IS practically impossible to properly test the REAL LEM using cables on Earth -- it MUST be tested in space. We have been saying that for several weeks (months?) now, but you haven't been listening.

The cable system was a crude way of training the pilots. That's all it was -- a flight trainer used to train LEM pilots; it was NOT a method for testing the LEM. Plus, it wasn't even the only trainer they had. As it has been explained to you many times, after they trained at Langley for a few weeks, then they graduated to the other trainers -- the LLRV and the LLTV.

BB -- please help me. I'm a little confused about what you are arguing about...Are you trying to say that the LEM needed to be tested more before Apollo 11, or are you tring to say that the Astronauts did not train adequately for flying the LEM. These are two distinct issues, but you seen to be mixing in both of these issues into each of your post -- Please keep these two arguments separated.

By the way, using your argument that the Astronauts needed to train in a real LEM before flying a real LEM, then how do you explain this training craft used to train Space Shuttle Pilots (I posted this twice before, but you don't seem to get it):
en.wikipedia.org...

Shuttle pilots don't train in the real shuttle...in fact the first time they fly the real shuttle is on their first real space mission as pilot -- just like Armstrong and the Apollo 11 LEM.


EDIT: Spelling

[edit on 4/16/2008 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
...
You are absolutely right, and have yet again help us make our argument against you.
...


I like very much when you feign not to understand and when you say I am helping you.

In that document NASA's braggarts say:



The Lunar Landing Research Facility is an A-frame steel structure 400 feet long and 230 feet high. Associated with this facility is a full-scale Apollo Lunar Excursion Module or LEM.


Have you read carefully?

They talk about a full-scale Apollo Lunar Excursion Module or LEM.

Therefore this is the real LEM that should have gone to the moon:

www.nasa.gov...

Since that LEM was light - 5 ton instead of 15 - NASA's braggarts could have used a suitable powerful engine to "effectively cancel all but one sixth of earth's gravitational force".

You are helping me with your reasoning:


Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
...
They did NOT test the LEM with the Langley crane because it IS practically impossible to properly test the REAL LEM using cables on Earth.
...


Since you are right, try to explain the sense of these words:



Experiences gained by the Apollo astronauts on the Lunar Landing Research Facility indicated that it was possible to successfully master the complicated skills that were required to land the LEM on the Moon.

Both Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin trained there FOR MANY HOURS.

Only when they successfully mastered skills necessary TO FLY THE LEM would NASA approve plans for their historic first landing on the Moon in July 1969.



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Big-Brain
 

I'm very confused about what exactly you are disputing.

Here are the facts as I see them:

Fact:
The REAL LEM that went to the Moon was NOT the one hung from the cables at Langley.

Fact:
The MOCK-UP of the LEM at Langley was used to train the astronauts. It wasn't a real LEM, but using cables and pulleys, it could simulate how to fly an LEM -- and it could be used to train the astronauts.

Fact:
The REAL LEM could not be tested on Earth because it was designed only to work in space or in the Moon's 1/6 gravity.

Don't confuse 'TESTING THE LEM" with "TRAINING THE ASTRONAUTS HOW TO FLY". These are two totally separate issues. They did NOT test the LEM at Langley -- They trained Astronauts and learned about the landing process at Langley.

Fact:
The LLRV and LLTV were two vehicles that simulated how the LEM flies, so an astronaut can learn to fly the real LEM by using the LLRV and LLTV. The Astronauts also trained in non-flying simulators that looked like the cockpit of the LEM

Again, the purpose of the LLRV and LLTV was NOT for testing the LEM, but was for TRAINING the astronauts.



Originally posted by Big-Brain
...In that document NASA's braggarts say:


The Lunar Landing Research Facility is an A-frame steel structure 400 feet long and 230 feet high. Associated with this facility is a full-scale Apollo Lunar Excursion Module or LEM.


Have you read carefully?

They talk about a full-scale Apollo Lunar Excursion Module or LEM.

Therefore this is the real LEM that should have gone to the moon:

Yes -- this was a full scale simulator, but it wasn't an LEM that could go to the Moon -- it may have been full scale (meaning the same SIZE as the real LEM), but it was NOT the real LEM.

Today's astronauts use a full-scale version of the space shuttle to do some of their training, but this space shuttle can't fly into space...it's only a full scale model.

Again, you're confusing Astronaut training with spacecraft testing -- they are two different things.


Since that LEM was light - 5 ton instead of 15 - NASA's braggarts could have used a suitable powerful engine to "effectively cancel all but one sixth of earth's gravitational force".

As ngchunter already explained to you, just because you can make an engine that will be able to make the LEM go up just like it would on the Moon does not mean that the whole LEM would react the same way (moving sideways for instance).

Plus, even if they did hang the real LEM from cables and give it an engine that would simulate flying in the Moon, what purpose would that serve? Why do you think NASA should have done this? How would that help train the astronauts any differently than the way they did it?

Like I said before, Space Shuttle astronauts learn to fly the Shuttle by using a modified airplane. They don't "use the real shuttle to learn how to fly the real shuttle". There is no need to teach the Astronauts how to fly the real LEM by using the real LEM on Earth.



Since you are right, try to explain the sense of these words:



Experiences gained by the Apollo astronauts on the Lunar Landing Research Facility indicated that it was possible to successfully master the complicated skills that were required to land the LEM on the Moon.

Both Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin trained there FOR MANY HOURS.

Only when they successfully mastered skills necessary TO FLY THE LEM would NASA approve plans for their historic first landing on the Moon in July 1969.

That's sounds right...Armstrong and the other astronauts spent many hours learning how to fly the LEM by training at the Lunar Landing Research Facility at Langley, and he also trained for many hours on the LLRV and LLTV, and many more hours in non-flying simulators. All of this training was enough to prepare him for flying the real LEM in space...
...so what's your point about this quote?

I'm not sure how your post gives any evidence to those who say the Moon landing was a hoax.


[edit on 4/16/2008 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 04:38 PM
link   


Experiences gained by the Apollo astronauts on the Lunar Landing Research Facility indicated that it was possible to successfully master the complicated skills that were required to land the LEM on the Moon.

Both Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin trained there FOR MANY HOURS.

Only when they successfully mastered skills necessary TO FLY THE LEM would NASA approve plans for their historic first landing on the Moon in July 1969.


You have not yet understood my simplest reasoning. I'm sorry for my bad English.

Armstrong and Aldrin flew that LEM for many hours. That LEM had a main engine and 20 thrusters and could fly for 3 minutes.

At Langley crane "it was possible to successfully master the complicated skills that were required to land the LEM on the Moon".

IT WAS POSSIBLE?

But this is a biggest lie that proves NASA's braggarts have said a lot of nonsense.

How could astronauts master the complicated skills that were required to balance a rocket that had to land going backwards suspended to a crane by rubber cables always in traction?

And astronauts did that nonsense for many hours.

NASA's braggarts can make joke of all gullible people, but I am bigbrain, the man that forced them to rotate Tempel 1 image 90 and 120 degrees to avoid people could say I was right.

What can you learn suspended to a crane with cables?

If you do it for many hours you are simply very stupid for many hours.

Armstrong in this video was ashamed of himself because he was not strong enough to say: "No, I don't want to do this buffoonery":

www.youtube.com...





[edit on 16-4-2008 by Big-Brain]



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Big-Brain
How could astronauts master the complicated skills that were required to balance a rocket that had to land going backwards suspended to a crane by rubber cables always in traction?

You don't need "complicated skills" to "balance" in space when you have a gyroscope. The key thing to learn in that simulator is how to land the craft manually. The trick is to know how to control your final descent rate to land safely but quickly in a safe location.


And astronauts did that nonsense for many hours.

NASA's braggarts can make joke of all gullible people, but I am bigbrain, the man that forced them to rotate Tempel 1 image 90 and 120 degrees to avoid people could say I was right.

Your arrogance is showing. Tempel 1 was hit with an impactor, just as described by NASA, and independently confirmed by multiple amateur astronomers. Lots of people see funny shapes in clouds, but it doesn't make them special.



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Big-Brain
NASA's braggarts can make joke of all gullible people, but I am bigbrain, the man that forced them to rotate Tempel 1 image 90 and 120 degrees to avoid people could say I was right.

Don't flatter yourself...you calling Tempel 1 a "bad animal" did NOT make NASA turn their pictures 90 and 120 degrees. I saw pictures of Tempel 1 shown in different orientations the day of the impact, long before you started claiming it must be fake simply because you see the shape of an animal's face in the surface of the comet.


What can you learn suspended to a crane with cables?

If you do it for many hours you are simply very stupid for many hours.

Besides learning how to land, the astronauts and the engineers at the Langley Research Center worked together to create the detailed procedures for landing.

Nasa is a very procedurally-detailed organization. They create flow charts for every action they do...and the actual landing on the Moon was one of the most important procedures they had to develop. They created the list of procedures, then practiced landing using that list of procedures, then did it again and again to be sure that every possible problem was considered and dealt with.

Then they moved on to the LLRV and LLTV and practiced on those flying machines for many more hours.

...so let me get this straight -- now you say you think we didn't go to the Moon based on the fact that the astronauts spent TOO MANY hours practicing???

[edit on 4/17/2008 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
...
You don't need "complicated skills" to "balance" in space when you have a gyroscope. The key thing to learn in that simulator is how to land the craft manually. The trick is to know how to control your final descent rate to land safely but quickly in a safe location.
...


Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
...
Nasa is a very procedurally-detailed organization. They create flow charts for every action they do...and the actual landing on the Moon was one of the most important procedures they had to develop. They created the list of procedures, then practiced landing using that list of procedures, then did it again and again to be sure that every possible problem was considered and dealt with.
...


You are two of the best minds of our century. My mind in front of your reasoning totters, staggers, wobbles.

"You don't need "complicated skills" to "balance" in space when you have a gyroscope".

Hey, NASA's braggarts have said that you need "complicated skills"
when you have to land a rocket going backwards.
You are refuting NASA's braggarts statements. You can't do it, you must believe in them.

"The trick is to know how to control your final descent rate to land safely but quickly in a safe location".

Suspended from a crane with rubber cables? Very interesting, really".

"They created the list of procedures, then practiced landing using that list of procedures, then did it again and again to be sure that every possible problem was considered and dealt with".

What procedures? If you are suspended with cables, what procedures can you test? If you are held by means of strong cables you have no problems, you are not practicing in landings but you are only playing up and down like on a carousel.

NASA's braggarts should have used a suitable engine that could allow astronauts to learn the complicated skills that were required to land the LEM on the Moon.

One strong cable hooked above the LEM could have allow astronauts to learn really in safe conditions.

Also children can understand I am right.

If NASA's braggarts have used cables to hold LEM in balance, only one is the reason: they were not able to build a rocket that could land going backwards

It is simple to understand if you consider that they had many problems also with rockets that had only to go forward.






[edit on 17-4-2008 by Big-Brain]



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Big-Brain

Hey, NASA's braggarts have said that you need "complicated skills"
when you have to land a rocket going backwards.

Stop truncating my remarks to take me out of context. I said you don't need "complicated skills" FOR BALANCE! Please show us where NASA says they needed complicated skills to keep the lander from "falling of at 360 degrees" as you love to remark. No engineer would ever agree with that statement. With a gyroscope and a simple computer the LEM is quite stable, as were the LLRV and LLTV, of which I already showed you a video.


You are refuting NASA's braggarts statements. You can't do it, you must believe in them.

No, I'm not. Show me where NASA actually says the spacecraft's BALANCE was difficult for the astronauts to maintain. You can't because no such statment exists.


"The trick is to know how to control your final descent rate to land safely but quickly in a safe location".

Suspended from a crane with rubber cables? Very interesting, really".

The cables were just one way to simulate 1/6th earth's gravity, they did not interfere with the ability to simulate the craft's descent rate, in fact, they made such simulation possible.



NASA's braggarts should have used a suitable engine that could allow astronauts to learn the complicated skills that were required to land the LEM on the Moon.

You keep ignoring my video, pretending like it doesn't exist. How conveinent for you because this video shows them landing a craft "backwards" without cables...


One strong cable hooked above the LEM could have allow astronauts to learn really in safe conditions.

The real LEM weighed several times what the simulators weighed, and the real fuels used are extremely toxic. That is why the mock LEM was designed with completely different engines using non-toxic hydrogen-peroxide. There'd be nothing safe about practicing with the real LEM.


Also children can understand I am right.

Children also believe in Santa Claus. Children are gullible and have not taken college courses in physics. They are not experts on the situation.


If NASA's braggarts have used cables to hold LEM in balance, only one is the reason: they were not able to build a rocket that could land going backwards

What do you call this then?
www.dfrc.nasa.gov...



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 158  159  160    162  163  164 >>

log in

join