An End To The Moon Conspiracy!, page 177
Pages: <<  174    175    176    177    178    179    180  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 28 times


reply posted on 19-1-2009 @ 10:32 AM by ngchunter
Originally posted by Komodo
cuz to me it's REALLY small~!



Glad to see you think it's so funny, but yes it's small in the sense that it was easily transported and deployed. And it's small in the sense that it takes a very large telescope and a very powerful laser to get a signal off of the reflector. That would seem to confirm that the retroreflector on the moon is really the size that it's supposed to be.

but, i'm sure they took coordinates to get EXACT x,y..

Yes, which is why they need a careful offset guiding system to get a point of reference for a precise hit on the reflector when it's on the other side of the terminator and in darkness.
www.csr.utexas.edu...

considering the moon rotates and all,

The moon rotates once per month, it doesn't rotate from earth's point of view. Lunar libration over the 1.5 seconds it takes a laser beam to reach the moon is practically nil and produces a scatter of only a few centimeters (www.iers.org...).

and well, since the mirror is static and doesn't seem to be a mechanical one, which would compensate for the angle of the beam used.....to fire from the Earth to the moon

It's not a mirror, it's a retroreflector. A retroreflector has the unique property of reflecting light back to its source with very little scattering regardless of what angle the light hits the reflector at.
en.wikipedia.org...

Or... they could just use a telescope to locate the REALLY small mirror.

Which is basically what they do. Fortunately, a laser beam's width spreads to about 2 kilometers in diameter by the time it reaches the moon, which is about the lunar resolution limit of a moderately sized research scope.

[edit on 19-1-2009 by ngchunter]


reply posted on 19-1-2009 @ 10:49 AM by RFBurns
Originally posted by ngchunter
[As was pointed out to me, in today's money it would cost 135 billion. Additionally, NASA was tasked with building and flying a reuseable space shuttle after apollo. How were they supposed to do that AND maintain apollo on their budget?


Umm...the space shuttle WAS supposed to be that re-usable space craft to continue the moon missions. And the space shuttle was initially designed (blueprinted) during the late 1960's...during the...(drum roll please)..Apollo missions!!!

Now dont you find it curious, that a new spacecraft was already on the drawing board, being designed, and finalized even BEFORE that last moon mission, yet during the last Apollo mission to the moon, the infrastructure of the space program for manned misisons were being scrapped even before the astronauts returned!

Keep in mind tho, the space shuttle is well underway in its design stages and being refined before actual construction.

Isnt it odd that the government, and NASA, would continue to go ahead building this capsule replacement during a so called "budget cut" and use the excuse of "budget cut" to literally slam on the brakes of manned missions to the moon and byond, as well as leave out key components of the shuttle that would allow it to be utilized for its intended purpose..such as the VTOL landing/take off rocket pod hardpoints, the pressurized cargo compartment, the added main engine and retro engine fuel tanks at the aft section of the ship, all those necessary things to give the shuttle its full potential, were left out, so that in the end, it is nothing more than a glorified "NASA FedEx" delivery ship???!!!

Dig deep my friend, budget had nothing to do with the manned space program being chopped to pieces. That is what they say it was, and most people bought it hook line and sinker. But that is NOT why, and given the fact that so much of what the government has told the people over the last 30 years CAN be proven to be a lie...most still want to believe that obvious lie that it was due to budget cuts that the manned space program was haulted????

Ya..ok. I suppose you believe that the 750 billion bailout recently actually done some good for the economy as they promised it would..and here they are again, talking about ANOTHER bailout. Bet you believe that one will save our ecnomic arses too eh?

THINK...dont SINK!!



Cheers!!!!


reply posted on 19-1-2009 @ 11:12 AM by Phage
Originally posted by RFBurns
Originally posted by ngchunter
[As was pointed out to me, in today's money it would cost 135 billion. Additionally, NASA was tasked with building and flying a reuseable space shuttle after apollo. How were they supposed to do that AND maintain apollo on their budget?


Umm...the space shuttle WAS supposed to be that re-usable space craft to continue the moon missions. And the space shuttle was initially designed (blueprinted) during the late 1960's...during the...(drum roll please)..Apollo missions!!!

The mission and design of the space shuttle was strictly LEO operations, originally to service space stations.
The primary intended use of the space shuttle was supporting the future space station. This function would dictate most of the shuttle's features. The U.S. Air Force was also interested in using the shuttle, and NASA welcomed their participation and influence to ensure political and financial support for the shuttle program. Many potential shuttle designs were proposed during the 1960s, and they varied widely. Many were exceedingly complex. An attempt to re-simplify was made in the form of the "DC-3" by Maxime Faget who had designed the Mercury capsule among other vehicles. The DC-3 was a small craft with a 20,000-pound (9 metric ton) payload, a four-man capacity, and limited aerodynamic maneuverability. At a minimum, the DC-3 provided a baseline "workable" (but not significantly advanced) system by which other systems could be compared for price/performance compromises.
en.wikipedia.org...

There are many reasons why the shuttle is unsuitable for lunar missions. Weight, fuel capacity, the re-entry speed on lunar return. Wrong tool for the job.



reply posted on 19-1-2009 @ 11:25 AM by RFBurns
Originally posted by Phage

There are many reasons why the shuttle is unsuitable for lunar missions. Weight, fuel capacity, the re-entry speed on lunar return. Wrong tool for the job.


Yes..in its current configuration.

What year is that report you quoted from btw? 1972? 73?

Search NASA's audio database on the last Apollo mission, where you will find the astronauts discussing the shuttle while they were pecking at rocks taking samples. One of them actually says "..yes America desperately needs that shuttle".

When was the last Apollo mission?

That shuttle was intended to be the new re-usable spacecraft to replace the capsules which were not re-usable.



It would not surprise me one bit that your not going to find any reference to the shuttle's original intent anywhere on the net or at NASA's site. But I bet you can find it in a library.


I remember this very well because I was following the space program very very closely since 68 and remember being very exited about NASA's mention of building a re-usable spacecraft to replace the capsules in 1970.



From report:



Conception

The maiden flight of Space Shuttle Columbia on April 12, 1981 (NASA). This was one of only two missions that had a painted external tank.Even before the Apollo 11 moon landing in 1969, NASA began early studies of space shuttle designs. The early studies beginning in October, 1968 were denoted "Phase A." Further studies resulted in "Phase B" in June 1970. These plans were much more detailed and more specific.

In 1969 President Richard Nixon formed the Space Task Group, chaired by vice president Spiro T. Agnew. This group evaluated the shuttle studies to date, and recommended a national space strategy including building a space shuttle.[1]

In October 1969, at a space shuttle symposium held in Washington, George Mueller (NASA's deputy administrator) presented opening remarks:[1]

The goal we have set for ourselves is the reduction of the present costs of operating in space from the current figure of $1,000 a pound for a payload delivered in orbit by the Saturn V, down to a level of somewhere between $20 and $50 a pound. By so doing we can open up a whole new era of space exploration. Therefore, the challenge before this symposium and before all of us in the Air Force and NASA in the weeks and months ahead is to be sure that we can implement a system that is capable of doing just that. Let me outline three areas which, in my view, are critical to the achievement of these objectives. One is the development of an engine that will provide sufficient specific impulse, with adequate margin to propel its own weight and the desired payload. A second technical problem is the development of the reentry heat shield, so that we can reuse that heat shield time after time with minimal refurbishment and testing. The third general critical development area is a checkout and control system which provides autonomous operation by the crew without major support from the ground and which will allow low cost of maintenance and repair. Of the three, the latter may be a greater challenge than the first two.

The 1972 NASA/GAO REPORT TO THE CONGRESS, Cost-Benefit Analysis Used In Support Of The Space Shuttle Program states:[2]

NASA has proposed that a space shuttle be developed for U.S. Space Transportation needs for NASA, the Department of Defense (DOD), and other users in the 1980s. The primary objective of the Space Shuttle Program is to provide a new space transportation capability that will:

reduce substantially the cost of space operations and
provide a future capability designed to support a wide range of scientific, defense, and commercial uses.


Source

No where in there does it say that the shuttle is only for LEO operations.

Tho the report does not specify, it is quite obvious that this was intended to do alot more than become NASA's personal delivery truck into space.



Cheers!!!!


reply posted on 19-1-2009 @ 12:57 PM by Phage
reply to post by RFBurns


There are a lot of designs that never made it off of the drawing boards once a full analysis was done. The practical aspects of a shuttle type vehicle for lunar missions make it non-workable. Weight being the largest hurdle. The weight required to make a useful "spaceplane" pushes the fuel requirements through the roof. The fuel that would need to be carried adds more weight still.

The shuttle did not live up to its expectations for low cost or ease of reuse. The concept has been abandoned. It's replacement is the Orion system which will be used for LEO operations as well as lunar missions. The crew module for the Orion program is reusable. The Ares-1 booster has a reusable first stage and the Orion module is also reusable. For lunar missions the Earth Departure Stage will be launched separately and dock with the Orion module in orbit. It sounds funky but the experience gained with both the Apollo missions and the shuttle show that it is a very workable solution.


reply posted on 19-1-2009 @ 12:59 PM by ngchunter
Originally posted by RFBurns
Search NASA's audio database on the last Apollo mission, where you will find the astronauts discussing the shuttle while they were pecking at rocks taking samples. One of them actually says "..yes America desperately needs that shuttle".

So because Cernan liked the shuttle concept, it must have been originally designed for moon missions? I think that's a non-sequitur. The final Apollo mission you quoted from occured in December 1972. Until then there was no settled, finalized design of the orbiter. The "original" design proposal called for two separate manned stages to get to orbit, both fully reusable, but it was never intended to fly lunar missions.

That shuttle was intended to be the new re-usable spacecraft to replace the capsules which were not re-usable.

Yes, but the mission plan never called for lunar capability. Cargo capacity to orbit and reusability were the main goals.

It would not surprise me one bit that your not going to find any reference to the shuttle's original intent anywhere on the net or at NASA's site. But I bet you can find it in a library.

Actually a great book on the subject can be found for free on NASA's site here:
history.nasa.gov...
Originally they also wanted to replace the S-IVB engine with a nuclear powered engine that would take us to mars, a goal they discuss in the book as well, it's quite a fascinating read. Clearly the shuttle was always supposed to support a space station though, not lunar operations.


reply posted on 19-1-2009 @ 01:06 PM by RFBurns
Originally posted by Phage

There are a lot of designs that never made it off of the drawing boards once a full analysis was done. The practical aspects of a shuttle type vehicle for lunar missions make it non-workable. Weight being the largest hurdle. The weight required to make a useful "spaceplane" pushes the fuel requirements through the roof. The fuel that would need to be carried adds more weight still.


Right, which part of the plans were to use the shuttle initially to build an orbiting platform from where to launch missions back to the moon using another version of the shuttle that was not just an Earth to orbit vehicle. However all of those "spaceplane" designs were based from the basic conceptual designs of what we have today, the current space shuttle.

Originally posted by Phage
The shuttle did not live up to its expectations for low cost or ease of reuse. The concept has been abandoned. It's replacement is the Orion system which will be used for LEO operations as well as lunar missions. The crew module for the Orion program is reusable. The Ares-1 booster has a reusable first stage and the Orion module is also reusable. For lunar missions the Earth Departure Stage will be launched separately and dock with the Orion module in orbit. It sounds funky but the experience gained with both the Apollo missions and the shuttle show that it is a very workable solution.


Yes the "Apollo on steroids" program. I agree, it is quite funky. The technnology is not anything really new. It does get us back to the moon, but is just a revised, beefed up, reusable Apollo variant.

If it gets the manned missions back to where they should have been 30 years ago that will have to be the way. But in retrospect to what was before the Apollo era, and the years since, and what will be to go back to the moon, we might as well pretend that we are back in the late 60's all over again on the technological level, with subtile improvements, as we go back to the moon.

After 50 years, one would think that we could have better hardware than just "tin can" like spacecraft. From 69..to 2019, we should have something alot better than a "module".



Cheers!!!!


reply posted on 19-1-2009 @ 02:37 PM by Komodo
reply to post by ngchunter


So, if they can use a telescope powerful enough, to spot a mirror that size, from that distance, what would be the use of the mirror again...to prove we went there? or.. to know how the moon traverses the earth or.. .? ....

but.. it's not powerful enough to spot the junk left on the moon? hmmmmm.. as we can see there's NOT 1 picture that I know on the web that still shows the junk left on the moon with a current time/date stamp.... yea... it's like that.


reply posted on 19-1-2009 @ 02:44 PM by Phage
reply to post by Komodo

The purpose of the mirrors is to precisely measure the distance between the Earth and the Moon (among other things). The mirrors are not viewed with a telescope. A laser is shone on the mirror and the time of the light in transit is measured. In order for the mirror to reflect the laser light back to Earth it must be precisely aligned.
en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 1/19/2009 by Phage]


reply posted on 19-1-2009 @ 02:49 PM by ngchunter
Originally posted by Komodo
reply to post by ngchunter


So, if they can use a telescope powerful enough, to spot a mirror that size,

Is the retroreflector 2 kilometers in diameter? Because that's the width of the laser beam, so that's all the resolution you need for accurately pointing the beam. We definately know where the mirror is located to within a kilometer, there's no question about that. That doesn't mean you can see it directly, just the occasional photon returned from a laser burst directed at the reflector.

or.. to know how the moon traverses the earth or.. .? ....

How the moon traverses the earth? We have a very good understanding of how the moon orbits the earth, if that's what you mean.

but.. it's not powerful enough to spot the junk left on the moon?

No, that would require a resolution of about .002 arcseconds. No telescope in the world has anywhere near that resolution. You'd need a scope about 10 times as large as the world's largest scope to resolve the landers.

hmmmmm.. as we can see there's NOT 1 picture that I know on the web that still shows the junk left on the moon with a current time/date stamp....

I fail to see the relevance of a date stamp, but Selene successfully imaged the dust disturbance caused by the Apollo descent stages:
Before and after Apollo 15 landed:


[edit on 19-1-2009 by ngchunter]


reply posted on 20-1-2009 @ 01:45 PM by Phage
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Erm...the webpage says both images were taken during the Apollo 15 mission.
(Fig 4) The lunar surface reflectivity change from before and after the landing (provided from NASA (left image : AS15-87-11719, right image : AS15-9430)) Figure 4 shows the reflectivity change of the surface before and after the landing of the Apollo 15. The left image was taken obliquely from the descending lunar module. The right image was taken from the command service module from an altitude of 110 km on the second orbit of the Moon after the landing. The circle area includes the landing site, and the "halo" can be seen in the right image.
www.jaxa.jp...

I think the correct ID for the photo on the left is AS15-94-12810 and it's taken from a higher altitude than the one on the left.

[edit on 1/20/2009 by Phage]

[edit on 1/20/2009 by Phage]


reply posted on 20-1-2009 @ 01:56 PM by ngchunter
reply to post by Phage


My bad, here's the Selene image on the right, which confirms the changes seen on the right of the last image post-landing. The reason for the difference in quality of the original image I posted is that one was taken by the lunar module at very low altitude before it began PDI and landed, and the other was taken later by the command module at over 100km altitude.



reply posted on 20-1-2009 @ 02:07 PM by Phage
reply to post by ngchunter


The cool thing about the images from Kaguya is that the 3D projection made from them matches the surface images from Apollo 15 perfectly, demonstrating the accuracy of the Kaguya instruments.

Kaguya projection


Apollo 15



[edit on 1/20/2009 by Phage]


reply posted on 20-1-2009 @ 02:56 PM by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by Mintwithahole.

Because we are not only trying to create a Moon Mission, but a Moon Program.

We could probably get back to the Moon in an Apollo-style mission more cheaply and nore quickl;y than the present Constellation Program, but the point of the Constellation program is not to simply go to the Moon, but to stay on the Moon.

The goals of the Constellation Program go way beyond walking on the Moon -- we also want to build bases on the Moon and learn how to live there, and build upon what we learn on the Moon to go to Mars (that's why there are 3 "worlds" in the logo for NASA's Constellation Program -- The earth, The Moon, and Mars).

There is a lot more infrastaucture needed for this long-reaching plan than we would need if we only wanted to "walk around" on the Moon again, such as a new heavy-lift rocket, which will be able to lift twice as much as the shuttle -- and the design and construction of that new infrastructure is expensive and time-consuming.


reply posted on 20-1-2009 @ 03:03 PM by jdub297
Originally posted by RFBurns

Umm...the space shuttle WAS supposed to be that re-usable space craft to continue the moon missions


No, it wasn't. It was a payload delivery system, hence the name: S(pace) T(ransportation) S(system)!

... designed (blueprinted) during the Apollo missions... .


When did you expect NASA to come up with booster, crew and cargo designs? And fly them? Ten years later? Maybe you forgot that Apollo continued to fly in orbital missions, such as the Soyuz hook-up.
(The LEM and Capsule/Orbiter designs were conceived in 1961, before we'd even perfected orbital manned spaceflight!)

... yet during the last Apollo mission ... the infrastructure ... for manned misisons were being scrapped ...


The infrastructure for manned spaceflight continued! Manned spaceflight didn't stop; it continued with Soyuz/Mir/Apollo, Skylab, and (tah-dah) the S.T.S. Even now, we're developing "infrastructure" for the next TWO generations of manned spacecraft!

Isnt it odd that the government, and NASA, would continue to go ahead ... and use the excuse of "budget cut" to literally slam on the brakes of manned missions to the moon and b[e]yond, as well as leave out key components ... for its intended purpose..such as the VTOL landing/take off rocket pod hardpoints, the pressurized cargo compartment, the added main engine and retro engine fuel tanks at the aft section of the ship ... so that in the end, it is nothing more than a ... delivery ship???!!!


You watched "Fireball XL-5" didn't you? There was never a VTOL capability or 'pod hardpoints,' et c. considered for STS. It always was a "delivery ship!" Remember the name?

A proponent of a position has the burden of proof in every argument. Where is your evidence of the "intended purpose" (VTOL, Fuel tanks aft, et c.)?

Speculation and possibilities are not evidence.

... budget had nothing to do with the manned space program being chopped to pieces ... .


Manned flight in space continued, or didn't you notice?

... most of what the government has told people over the last 30 years CAN be proven to be a lie ... .


If it "CAN be proven," do it right now(or start a new thread); I dare you. You have the burden of proof, remember? Conspiracy myths and fears are not real.

... most still want to believe that obvious lie that it was due to budget cuts that the manned space program was haulted(sic) ...


Again, just because you say it, even believe it, does not make it so. Manned spaceflight was not halted. Proof? I didn't think so.

... I suppose you believe that the 750 billion bailout recently actually done some good for the economy as they promised it would..and here they are again, talking about ANOTHER bailout. Bet you believe that one will save our ecnomic arses too eh
?

First, it was not $750 bn, it was half that. You really need to get your facts and recent history straight. Second, it saved mine, my bonus went up 10X over last year! Speak for yourself. I can't wait for my next 'bailout.' (kidding aside, YOUR democrat/progressive/liberal-led Congress did that, and now your Savior will do it again with Pelosi's, Shumer's, B. Frank's and Reid's help and guidance.)

Deny Ignorance!

THINK...dont SINK!! (take some of tour own advice, please)



Cheers!!!!


reply posted on 21-1-2009 @ 02:09 AM by BuffaloJoe
reply to post by Phage


I always believed that the Nasa astronauts did walk on the moon but I thought that the hoax camp had some credible discrepancies.

To me, the Kaguya release was the nail in the coffin of nay sayers.

Of course, if Kaguya is a NASA collaborated project then it too is just a hoax....AGHHHH!! Just kidding.

What I do believe is that we don't have all the truth and that information was being supressed. Hopefully, in the near future, we'll have sufficient evidence from a 3rd party to put that to rest too.
Pages: <<  174    175    176    177    178    179    180  >>    ^^TOP^^