An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

Originally posted by Big-Brain

NG-LLC (I love these NASA's frauds' acronyms)

Since when do acronyms prove fraud? The presence of acronyms, half of which you tend to make up yourself as if you think you're cute (not this one, but later on), are irrelevant to the issue at hand.

or rather
Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge is a real tomfoolery.

en.wikipedia.org...

How is that the extraordinary BGG (Biggest Grumman Group)

Stop making up fake acronyms. You're wasting my time.

that built from 1962 to 1971 13 LMs (I love NASA's frauds' acronyms)

Acronyms are not evidence of a fraud.

or rather Lunar Modules and that landed on the Moon 6 LMs and 12 astronauts
ask on 2008 to poor people (an ex developer of computer games, an ex fierworks specialist and so on) to invent a new Lunar Lander?

Northrop Grumman's sponsoring of the lunar lander challenge is irrelevant. The event is to see what unique approaches independent inventors can come up with. Why did the Ansari X prize foundation give a prize to the first private group to fly into space with a reusable vehicle? We already have a resuable vehicle that flies into space regularly, so why bother? The answer, of course, is the same: to give the incentive for a pioneer to approach an old problem in a better way. Just because we have one answer to a problem doesn't mean we can't come up with an even better answer. Getting the cooperation of the company that made history in first solving this particular problem makes perfect sense.

There is something very strange.

No, there isn't.

Why did BGG (Biggest Grumman Group) stop its researches about probes and Lunar Modules and began to produce these LLVs (yes, you have understood well: LLVs not LLRVs or LLTVs) ?

Why should Grumman continue to manufacter training vehicles for a program that was cancelled? There was money to be had in selling postal trucks to the government, but the government didn't need to buy any more LLRVs. This question is so ridiculous I can't believe I'm actually bothering to answer it.

From space to postal service?

What were they supposed to do BB? Keep making lunar modules that no one was going to buy? Oh yeah, THAT makes a lot of sense... A good company adapts their manufacturing capabilities to match the demand. The government needed a new postal truck, Grumman made one. Good for them.

Has BBG (Biggest Grumman Group) lost its extraordinary technology able to lift and land a rocket holding it in vertical position like a helicopter?

No, but that won't stop you from making baseless accusations, will it? WHO WOULD BUY SUCH A THING IF NOT NASA? NASA didn't need them anymore, so why continue to manufacture it?

If they had been really so extraordinary in 1960-1970, today their technology would be astonishing after almost 40 years.

Your asinine assumption is that someone would have wanted to, and had the cash to, purchase and provide a constant demand for that high level of technology as well as the research to develop even better technologies along the same lines. No such consumer existed after Apollo was canceled and NASA's budget was slashed. But of course, I'm sure you'll happily continue to overlook this grievous logical error and pretend that I didn't say anything about it at all.

Conclusion: their technology was false, in fact no video exists about LEMs tested at Langley Crane and shot by means of 6 cine-cameras during 150 test flights.

Liar. We already told you the film exists in *shock and surpise* film form. Just because you only know how to do youtube search (and sadly believe that to be the sum of thorough research) does not prove anything. Prove it doesn't exist or stop lying. In fact, we showed you images of the LLRF functioning properly, you have yet to provide ANY evidence that it never functioned properly. We have provided video after video of the LLRV functioning properly, you have yet to provide ANY evidence that this was not the case.

[edit on 23-5-2008 by ngchunter]

reply to post by ngchunter



My dear readers, what can we say in front of this incredible stupidity?

Ngchunter is a gout. End of the story.



[edit on 23-5-2008 by Big-Brain]

reply to post by Big-Brain


BB, as my mother was fond of saying, if you had half a brain you'd be dangerous.

First, you wished that I would be abducted by aliens....was that a veiled threat??

Then, you called ncghunter a name....

Is that TWO violations of the T&Cs yet??


Unfortunately, being an ignoramous isn't a violation of policy....but posting something you know is false, is.

BUT, calling other ATS members a "gout", or wishing another ATS member harm, in a post is a direct violation.

So, now we have THREE violations.

Mods, BB provides nothing to these discussions, except nonsense.

I think he's used up all of the incredible rope you've offered him, hand has managed to hoist himself on his own petard, in the meantime.

(if it turns out that he is simply a mentally deranged individual who requires kid gloves, and compassion, then I will be compassionate...)

Originally posted by Big-Brain

My dear readers, what can we say in front of this incredible stupidity?

Ngchunter is a gout. End of the story.

"gout [gowt]
Noun
a disease that causes painful inflammation of certain joints, for example of the big toe [Latin gutta a drop]"

You heard him. Apparently, I am metabolic arthritis lol.

[edit on 23-5-2008 by ngchunter]

Alright, we are going to end this personal junk NOW!!! NO MORE INSULTS. That means everyone.

reply to post by Big-Brain


I believe I said your comments were ignorant, I have tried very hard to avoid any insults directed at you personally. If I have failed in this regard I apologize.

For my part, I'm done. I've had enough with being insulted for one day. I'm out of here, at least until such time that someone else comes along who cares to debate apollo hoax theories in a way that sticks to the facts, not to personal insults. It was fun hanging out with you guys; my hat's off to JRA, weedwacker, dark blue, and others whose knowledge of spaceflight has contributed to the quality of this forum.

reply to post by ngchunter


I very much appreciate the message from Intrepid.

I would like to point out, though....when you have time, Intrepid, perhaps you could review some of the many posts, just the last few pages, and note the restraint that has been obvious in ngchunter's responses!!

ngchunter has brought a boat-load of info to this thread, and I know I have learned a great deal from him....I bow to his knowledge and expertise.

And, I stand by all that I have posted, as well....even when my blood has boiled a few times.....

WW

reply to post by ngchunter


If you say my comments are ignorant, since ignorant means:

dictionary.reverso.net...

you are saying I am lacking in education, awareness, knowledge and I am unenlightened.

This is a severe affront, insult, outrage to my big brain.

But I don't care of insults because I am not touchy.

Returning to the question, my dear readers, you must read this:

space.xprize.org...

The Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge is designed to accelerate commercial technological developments supporting the birth of a new generation of Lunar Landers capable of ferrying payloads or humans back and forth between lunar orbit and the lunar surface. Such a vehicle would have direct application to NASA’s space exploration goals as well as the personal spaceflight industry. Additionally, the challenge will help industry develop the operational capacity to launch quick turnaround vertical take-off, vertical landing vehicles, which will be of significant use to many facets of the commercial launch procurement market.

space.xprize.org...

“We are excited by the number of teams competing this year and their overall level of sophistication”, said Dr. Peter H. Diamandis, Chairman and CEO of the X PRIZE Foundation.
“We fully expect to award the $2 million purse this year in what will prove to be an exhilarating showdown between a number of very qualified teams”.

My dear readers, pay attention to these words:

“The Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge is designed to accelerate... the birth of a new generation of Lunar Landers capable of ferrying payloads or humans back and forth between lunar orbit and the lunar surface”.

“We are excited by the number of teams competing this year and their overall level of sophistication”.

"Sophistication"?

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

Could this remote controlled childish toy ferry payloads or humans back and forth between lunar orbit and the lunar surface?

media.armadilloaerospace.com...

No, it couldn't do it.

My big brain wonders why NG-LLC allowed Armadillo Aerospace to compete with a prototype unable to ferry a pound of potatoes?

I hope that some goat can give us a reasonable answer.






[edit on 24-5-2008 by Big-Brain]

Originally posted by Big-Brain
My dear readers, pay attention to these words

Perhaps you should read those words again yourself. You obviously don't understand what's writen.

Could this remote controlled childish toy ferry payloads or humans back and forth between lunar orbit and the lunar surface?

media.armadilloaerospace.com...

No, it couldn't do it.

My big brain wonders why NG-LLC allowed Armadillo Aerospace to compete with a prototype unable to ferry a pound of potatoes?

The LLC itself isn't about designing a Lunar Lander to carry payloads to the Moon and back. The LLC is meant for designing and building a working proof of concept. The long term goal is to kickstart an industry that can build Lunar Landers able to carry payloads to the Moon at a reasonable cost.

reply to post by jra

“The Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge is designed to accelerate... the birth of a new generation of Lunar Landers capable of ferrying payloads or humans back and forth between lunar orbit and the lunar surface”.

13 Lunar Modules built by Grumman were able to ferry 2 astronauts + 1 moon buggy 210 kg + 1 ALSEP (I love NASA's frauds' acronyms) 30 kg + moon rocks and other things.

Then Grumman Lunar Modules could be built to ferry payloads or humans back and forth between lunar orbit and the lunar surface without big changes.

Why should BGG (Biggest Grumman Group) ask for help to incapable people without money indispensable to build a rocket able to ferry humans and payloads, capable to take off and to land going forth and backwards like helicopters?

Conclusion: Grumman technology was fully false.

My dear readers, I hope that some goat can give us a reasonable answer.

reply to post by Big-Brain


My dear readers, the only reasonable answer is:

Grumman technology was fully false.

Conclusion: Moon landings of 1969 were fully false shot in studio since USA had not the big technology indispensable to land men on the Moon and let them come back.

Even today a country that has that big technology doesn't exist.
Even today we have not technology to replace oil, the devil take him.

reply to post by Big-Brain


Big-

Too bad your 'large' brain isn't smart enough to have a satellite TV link. You would have just seen, at about 1955 EDT, 25 May 2008, the Mars Phoenix lander telemetry come in to JPL in Pasadena, California....relayed by another European monitoring station....I just watched it, just now....the Phoenix successfully landed on Mars.

Not be remote control, but by 'incredible technology' that you insist is impossible.

Of course, with your brain, you'd know that by the time the telemetry reached Earth, the fate of the spacecraft was sealed some minutes before....but once the radio signals arrived, confirmation of a perfect landing!!!!

So, now go away and study....go to school, maybe take a course in English while you're studying physics and astrometrics and other aerospace disciplines.

[just to add] While this IS an international forum, it is predominately in English...not to dismiss anyone, but in order to intelligently discuss, and to comprehend sources you wish to bring in to support your case, it is imperative to have a fairly good grasp of the English language. A reliance on translation programs will not work, in the long run.

[edit on 5/25/0808 by weedwhacker]

corrected EST to EDT....converting EDT to GMT (Z), or UTC is....add four hours.

[edit on 5/25/0808 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
...
Phoenix successfully landed on Mars.
...
Not be remote control, but by 'incredible technology' that you insist is impossible.
...
So, now go away and study....go to school, maybe take a course in English while you're studying physics and astrometrics and other aerospace disciplines.

Hey, I also could land on Mars with 3D cartoons.

www.jpl.nasa.gov...

The same tomfoolery over and over, again and again.

What are those false enthusiastic stupid people doing?

Are they applauding to 3D animated cartoons?

My dear readers, look carefully at their behaviour: it is only a show.

Interesting: Phoenix has 12 rocket engines. Surely WW will be able to show us some test of landings made by Phoenix on the Earth.




[edit on 26-5-2008 by Big-Brain]

Big Brain, why do you continue to scoff and scientific fact, and continue with your claims even though EVERY ONE has been shown to be false with plenty of back up data?

Do you have a hidden agenda, or are you just a kid trying to have some fun at other people's expense? I think it's that latter, and if so, please stop wasting everyone's time, you are becoming a joke.

reply to post by Big-Brain


Big minus, what the heck is wrong with you??????

If you can't understand the difference between a computer-generated visual simulation (to convey, to an audience, what is likely happening...happened) then you will NEVER comprehend!!!!!!

Big minus, there is no bloody camera on Mars to watch the Phoenix land....it has to be shown, in a simulation.

Big minus, the pictures from the Phoenix lander are already being transmitted. They can be viewed right here on ATS!!!

What a shame, you waste your 'big brain' on nonsense....I say it again, go out and learn for a change!!! Please???/

I have not found a real picture of Phoenix tested on the earth.

My dear readers, if NASA’s frauds had to send a probe on Mars with 12 rocket engines pushing from the bottom that has to land going backwards, which was the first thing to do?

To test Phoenix landing on the earth. As usually, we can’t see any video showing Phoenix landing on the earth.

WHY?

Because USA have not technology to land a probe that has to land going backwards. Pure and simple.

Only goats refute this simple concept.






[edit on 27-5-2008 by Big-Brain]

I don't understand why you think landing vertically with reverse thrust is so impossible.

[yvidwww.youtube.com...&hl[/yvid]


Or why testing a SPACECRAFT in the Earths atmosphere and gravity field makes any sense!

[edit on 5/27/2008 by darkbluesky]

[edit on 5/27/2008 by darkbluesky]

Originally posted by darkbluesky
I don't understand why you think landing vertically with reverse thrust is so impossible.

[yvidwww.youtube.com...&hl[/yvid]


Or why testing a SPACECRAFT in the Earths atmosphere and gravity field makes any sense!

Your video is about a plane that flies in our atmosphere and has wings that balance it.
It has nothing to share with Phoenix. Also goats know this simple concept.

Testing a SPACECRAFT in the Earth's atmosphere and gravity field makes total sense because you must see if your spacecraft is capable to land going backwards without crashing on the ground.

If NASA's frauds never show a video of their probes that must land going backwards, it means that they have not technology to do it.

Also goats understand this simple concept.

Originally posted by Big-BrainYour video is about a plane that flies in our atmosphere and has wings that balance it.
It has nothing to share with Phoenix. Also goats know this simple concept.

Jackass' know that wings provide lift, not balance, and they produce nothing without forward velocity.