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: 71
29
<< 68  69  70    72  73  74 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 04:24 AM
link   
i honestly believe people landed on the moon but the footage we have seen is staged. i think there was more to the moon landing than anyone knows




posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 02:09 PM
link   
[ Here's a possible end to the conspiracy...

www.space.com... "]

Are you serious? In the year 2007 ... all we can come up with are these blotchy photo's as proof?! I think all the skeptics will be satisfied when an independant association of astronomical observers confirms the landing sites with decent photos.

Rememeber when you seen the moon the largest you've ever seen it? Hell I could pick out large craters with my naked eye. We can build a telescope that can peer so deep into space that we can see "back in time", yet we can't build a telescope that can see the moon?

Someone out there just do it and we'll believe it.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
As conspiracies go...

This one was blown wide open a long time ago TheDangler... unfortunately the pro-NASAs keep dragging out the same rhetorically-based arguments... As if all of the 'discussions' were fair and honest exchanges of ideas... The whole time TOTALLY IGNORING that NASAs credibility was hammered a long time ago.



I asked in a different thread...

'Is there anyone here who can say with a straight face that the apex of what would be science, NASA, has not engaged in 'enhancing' photos?'
snip



Can you say , with a straight face, that the data collected from the lunar laser range finding experiments is a hoax ?

Here's my take. The pro-nasa camp has physical evidence, and reason on their side. The pro-hoax camp has theories, opinions, and 1 bit of logic on thier side. (that being NASA and kennedy has motive to fake it)

The pro-NASA camp has 2 categories of physical evidence

Physical evidence category 1, proof we were there, and brought something back;
Moon rocks baby. Don't believe everything you read on the internet, if you think they are fakes, go take a look yourself.


physical evidence category 2, proof we were there, and left something behind.
Lunar mirrors baby. Don't believe everything you read on the internet. If you think they were faked, go to the McDonald Observatory and go look for yourself



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 11:13 AM
link   


>Can you say , with a straight face, that the data collected from the lunar laser range finding experiments is a hoax ?

The 'results' DO speak for themselves.


>'Here's my take. The pro-nasa camp has physical evidence, and reason on their side. The pro-hoax camp has theories, opinions, and 1 bit of logic on thier side. (that being NASA and kennedy has motive to fake it)'

Some of us are simply pro-Truth...

I personally find it HIGHLY amusing that the pro-NASAs seem to state so blatantly they hold ALL of the intellectual high ground (and intellectual capabilities
), yet can't seem to decode WHY the 'laser ranging' 'results' are TOTALLY bogus...

And certainly don't come ANYWHERE NEAR the marketing glossy category results that are IMPLIED (and NOT delivered) to the public.

Ooooo LASER ranging...

Buzz: ' Ah, ah, ah, please be careful! You don't want to be in the way when my laser goes off.'
Mr. Potato Head: 'Hey, a laser! How come you don't have a laser, Woody?'
Woody: 'It's not a laser! It's a little lightbulb that blinks!'
Hamm: 'What's with him?'
Mr. Potato Head: 'Laser-envy.'

I must have 'laser-envy'!

(I'm sorry, I just hurt myself laughing.
)



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 11:42 AM
link   
ONe of the things I used to believe without question was that we went to the moon.
Now, nothing short of a clear photo of the moon buggy with tire-tracks behind it would convince me.
Dont get me wrong, I would like to believe that the mighty USA went to the moon, but I need more then a blotchy photo, a couple of rocks, and a reflected laser to convince me that we actually did make the round trip journey.


jra

posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by tyranny22
Are you serious? In the year 2007 ... all we can come up with are these blotchy photo's as proof?!


Those image in the link were taken by Clementine, back in the early '90s. The resolution wasn't the best. Next year the LRO will go to the Moon and map it with .5meter per pixel resolution. With that, you'll be able to make out the larger Apollo artifacts.


We can build a telescope that can peer so deep into space that we can see "back in time", yet we can't build a telescope that can see the moon?


When you look at the sky with your naked eye, you're looking 'back in time', because the light we see from other stars has taken a long time to reach us. It doesn't have much to do with the telescope itself.

In order to resolve extreme detail on the surface of the Moon from an Earth based telescope. The thing would have to be about 200 meters in diameter, if I remember right. Currently the largest telescope has a mirror that's 10 meters in diameter. It's better to use a satellite in low orbit.

[edit on 1-3-2007 by jra]



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 09:34 AM
link   
lol, just some rocks and a mirror ?


The funny part of ATS is it's a world where John titor can build a time machine a few years after a nuclear holocost, but men can't possibly go to the moon with 400,000 employees and the president funding the program.




[edit on 1-3-2007 by syrinx high priest]



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11Bravo
ONe of the things I used to believe without question was that we went to the moon.
Now, nothing short of a clear photo of the moon buggy with tire-tracks behind it would convince me.
Dont get me wrong, I would like to believe that the mighty USA went to the moon, but I need more then a blotchy photo, a couple of rocks, and a reflected laser to convince me that we actually did make the round trip journey.


What we really need is a photograph of the stars and constellations, taken from the moon, using an astrological telescope/camera. That would be nearly impossible to fake.

It would be even easier for NASA to fake a moon buggy using a sophisticated Hollywood-type set with CGI and I wouldn't really trust too many photographs or even movies, since they can be digitally altered.

The best thing would be a moon base that could be seen by terrestrial telescopes. A radar or laser reflector could easily be placed by a remotely piloted vehicle, like the Russian rover. BTW, do you know how small those Apollo laser reflectors were? They were only about 1-2 feet across, not even the size of a small computer desktop. Ask someone who insists that laser reflectors are proof of moon landings to calculate just how wide even a tight laser beam would be when it got to the moon. It's on the order of several tens of meters! The moon's surface is enough of a reflector to bounce back a laser. I doubt if anyone could reliably hit that small of a laser reflector with an Earth-based laser beam.

BTW, are you aware that NASA faked the viability of the Saturn V rockets? You'll notice that though they were supposedly capable for putting 118,000 kg of payload into Low Earth Orbit (LEO), and 47,000kg into Lunar Orbit, they were not used to launch the Space Shuttle. Why not? It turns out that the Space Shuttle rockets can only lift about 1/5 that much into LEO. So in twenty years, we are using a vehicle that costs six times as much as the Saturn V, and can only lift 1/5 the payload.

By using the Saturn V, with the SS as the final stage, we could have used the second stage (still attached) to start building a Space Station, back in the 70s. Very suspicious in my book that we did not do this. How is it that we leap-frogged over the obvious step of building a space station and went right to the moon?

Heh, don't mean to go on and on about this. Sorry for the verbosity.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Badge01

BTW, are you aware that NASA faked the viability of the Saturn V rockets?
I was not aware of that, but I do remember reading that they lost the blueprints for the saturn rockets and that the only guy who knew how to build them died with the knowledge.
Kinda like NASA losing the high-def footage. Simply preposterous, but folks will believe what they want.

Sorry for the verbosity.

ON the contrary, thanks for the verbosity, and thanks for refreshing my vocabulary skills.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Schmidt1989
I have never believed in the moon landings, not a tiny tiny bit until about a week or so ago i saw a program on television debunking the moon conspiracy but at the same time, reinforcing it as well. the stuff they showed reinforcing it was just too true for me to see so now i am a beleiver that we did goto the moon, and sorry i cant post anything from the show itself, i have no clue what the program it was called or even what channel it was on.


Yeah I'd like to see that one. But its one sided just as the bunkers side
is.
I don't think it look much effort for the bunkers to work on it either.

For my own ideas on what we may consider:

Russia now seems to have never been in the race, its rocket had
small thrust engines in a ring that toppled over in a flash.
What a looser of a rocket. If we had any agents in Russia, this
must have been known. There was no race, we just had to show up
on the moon some how.

Note: If we didn't know then thats a case for why we didn't know
about 911 but we knew all about WMDs in IRAQ and nukes in Korea
and IRAN. Do we or don't we know.

OK, back to the moon. I was never more surprised at seeing a camera
ready and focused at the ladder for someone to take the first step.
I thought that was bogus. And Buzz came down second not wanting to
be the focus of any hard questions if the truth came out.
So Hollywood and I knew someone from a company that put those
cameras on the rockets. Too bad I never thought of asking back years
ago. Its all no proof, just a story.

Also I never bought the dust on the surface, Mars has some dust
but not that deep.

And why so slow, because they have Helium in their packs that
make them lite on earth but on the moon their earth legs should
do better than that.

I never chronicled all the space projects and its all money well
spent I suppose. No one knows how the UFO works so why should
people now think the moon landing happened.
No one thought of double checking and notarizing.

And about all history movies now days, the whole story was never
told from the start. The last one I saw that gave a hint of what else
was the US capture of the so called last U boat with Uranium that
was going to Japan. At the end as all the captive sailor were lining
out past the crowd for the camera the narrator goes and Dernitz
ordered the remaining u boats to sink themselves.

I fell out the the chair and rolled around the floor laughing, that
is the old time media mind controlled bunk.
Perhaps Dernitz said hold back on the final attack and go back to
the remote bases. His prize subs may have been atomic without the
waste.

From:World War II As Seen Through Children’s Literature



Admiral Karl Dernitz asked for extra U-Boats. Hitler refused, so Dernitz used what he had. Forty-one British supply ships were sunk by German mines and U-Boats. Hitler was building ships in France. British supplies were cut off, so they started sailing in convoy to avoid detection. U-Boats then hunted the seas in wolf-packs. Churchill asked Roosevelt for help. The Lend-lease act was born. Through the Atlantic Charter, Great Britain and America protected the Atlantic together. Two hundred forty-nine of the three hundred U-Boats that Dernitz had originally asked for were made. America was turning out three ships a day. Fifteen hundred in all were made. American ships were being made faster than the Germans could sink them. Ninety-two ships were sunk off the coasts of Boston, New York City, Washington D.C., and Miami. Twenty-five ships were sunk off the coast of Florida because residents fearing that their tourist trade would be hurt, refused to turn off their lights. The war had actually been brought to our shores. This is a little-known fact.


Off shore alright. And new subs not for hitting the Atlantic fleet.
That would be loosing the war. Would any know about these new
subs, guess not. So I must believe the standard story.

And what would the non standard story prove. That Operation Paper
Clip was necessary above the objection of people like Walter Winchell.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11Bravo

Originally posted by Badge01

BTW, are you aware that NASA faked the viability of the Saturn V rockets?
I was not aware of that, but I do remember reading that they lost the blueprints for the saturn rockets and that the only guy who knew how to build them died with the knowledge.

How convenient.
Yes, one expert I saw interviewed said the rocket plume coming out of the tail of the rocket on launch had a black interior, whereas in his experience it was supposed to be a white-hot flame. He said it looked to him like a giant 'flame thrower' effect, and not like the high pressure of a real rocket.

As you know a flame thrower will throw out a jet of fire, but it has virtually no propulsive effect - similar to a large garden hose. His feeling was that they never solved one of the basic problems with the rocket, so they elected to make a big flame and make people believe they'd solved it.



Kinda like NASA losing the high-def footage. Simply preposterous, but folks will believe what they want.


The thing about the Moon Landing hoax is it's not just about some oddities on pictures, strange lighting, and oddities of jumping Astronauts, nor the improbability of them getting a perfect hole-in-one on the first attempt.

It's not even just the Van Allen Belts, or the embarrassed way the Astronauts looked at the press conference. It's not just them faking being half-way to the moon from Low Earth Orbit by putting cutouts over the window, or the strange series of deaths surrounding the program, starting with Gus Grissom and his crew. It's not even just about the way Armstrong won't discuss the mission, and the funny way he addressed the incoming NASA group (talking about getting the 'truth' out).

It's not just about the failure of the LEM to stay aloft in tests, nearly killing Armstrong, or about the way Grissom labeled the main Capsule a failure by hanging a lemon on the door handle during testing.

It's not just about the fact that we skipped building a Space Station and gaining valuable experience in what -has- to be a first step before going straight to the moon.

It's also about the background story, the drop in viability and payload of the rocket motors between the early 70s and the early 80s when the SS was put into service (the rockets should have gotten better, not worse).

It's about -every- aspect of the mission(s) being impossible to believe to be true.



[edit on 1-3-2007 by Badge01]


jra

posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Badge01
What we really need is a photograph of the stars and constellations, taken from the moon, using an astrological telescope/camera. That would be nearly impossible to fake.


How would this help and what would it prove exactly? If one believes they can fake an entire Lunar program with fake photos and video, then why do you believe that adding stars in the photos would be so challenging and help to prove the legitimacy of the landings?

They could not take photos of the stars for a very few simple reasons. Long exposures needed to get the faint star light to expose on film, No tripod to keep the camera steady for long exposures, The sun was shining and the terrain would have greatly over exposed on the photos.


It would be even easier for NASA to fake a moon buggy using a sophisticated Hollywood-type set with CGI and I wouldn't really trust too many photographs or even movies, since they can be digitally altered.


Ummm... we're talking 1960's technology here. Have you seen movies from that time period. Even the best sci fi from that time (2001: A space odyssey) doesn't even compare to the quality and detail of the Apollo photo and video documentation.

And to be honest, not even CGI and other digital graphics are quite there yet to make something truly convincing.


The best thing would be a moon base that could be seen by terrestrial telescopes.


Read my previous post in regards to spotting things on the Moon with Earth based telescopes.


A radar or laser reflector could easily be placed by a remotely piloted vehicle, like the Russian rover. BTW, do you know how small those Apollo laser reflectors were? They were only about 1-2 feet across, not even the size of a small computer desktop. Ask someone who insists that laser reflectors are proof of moon landings to calculate just how wide even a tight laser beam would be when it got to the moon. It's on the order of several tens of meters! The moon's surface is enough of a reflector to bounce back a laser. I doubt if anyone could reliably hit that small of a laser reflector with an Earth-based laser beam.


You are correct that a remote vehicle could place the reflectors, but what rocket could have got it there? You can't exactly hide a launch. And if you believe that they can get an unmanned probe to the Moon, then why not people? Electronics are more easily affected and damaged by radiation than people are. So what in your mind would prevent people from going there and placing it themselves?

Also I don't think the moon would reflect enough of the laser light directly back, it would scatter the light too much. And when the laser hits the Moon, it's not a small point of light, it covers a large area, but the part that hits the reflectors is reflected right back and they measure those reflected photons.


BTW, are you aware that NASA faked the viability of the Saturn V rockets? You'll notice that though they were supposedly capable for putting 118,000 kg of payload into Low Earth Orbit (LEO), and 47,000kg into Lunar Orbit, they were not used to launch the Space Shuttle. Why not?


Because the Saturn wasn't design to have a large vehicle strapped to the side of it perhaps?


It turns out that the Space Shuttle rockets can only lift about 1/5 that much into LEO. So in twenty years, we are using a vehicle that costs six times as much as the Saturn V, and can only lift 1/5 the payload.


The Shuttle wasn't meant to be a heavy lift rocket. And at the time, the Saturn V was considered to be very expensive and the Shuttle concept was thought to be much cheaper. It was also planned to go to orbit a lot more often as well. Things didn't quite turn out as planned due to the ever shrinking budget of NASA. And many compromises were made.


By using the Saturn V, with the SS as the final stage, we could have used the second stage (still attached) to start building a Space Station, back in the 70s. Very suspicious in my book that we did not do this. How is it that we leap-frogged over the obvious step of building a space station and went right to the moon?


Well they did use the Saturn for putting Skylab into orbit, but as stated above, the Saturn was considered too costly to continue to use and they wanted something reusable.


Originally posted by 11Bravo
I was not aware of that, but I do remember reading that they lost the blueprints for the saturn rockets and that the only guy who knew how to build them died with the knowledge.


That is a myth, the blue prints are stored on micro film in the National archives. But blueprints alone won't allow you to build a rocket. All the specialized tooling is gone. No aerospace company keeps all that stuff. You'd need to build large warehouses just to store all that stuff. Which just isn't feasible. And there is no one single guy who contained all the knowledge of how to build the Saturn rocket. Every stage of the rocket was built by a different aerospace company. You would be right in saying that the many people who worked on it who have passed away have taken some of the knowledge with them, because again, blueprints alone won't tell you how to build it.


Kinda like NASA losing the high-def footage. Simply preposterous, but folks will believe what they want.


The footage wasn't "high-def". It was a bit better, but still poorer quality then your average TV.


Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
Russia now seems to have never been in the race, its rocket had
small thrust engines in a ring that toppled over in a flash.
What a looser of a rocket. If we had any agents in Russia, this
must have been known. There was no race, we just had to show up on the moon some how.


The N-1 was underfunded and a fairly ambitious design if I recall. There were only four test launches. I do believe if given more funding and if Sergei Korolev (who was the USSR's equivalent to Wernher von Braun) didn't die. They could probably have gotten it to work. There was a lot of behind the scenes rivalry and politically related things going on that really didn't help matters. Vasily Mishin who took over after Korolev, didn't have the same political astuteness or power that Korolev had.

The USSR still had some big ideas for the Moon. If they had pulled it off, they would have dwarfed the Apollo program. You can read about those plans here: www.russianspaceweb.com...


Originally posted by Badge01
It's not just them faking being half-way to the moon from Low Earth Orbit by putting cutouts over the window


Ah the ol "cutouts on the window" theory. Take a look at this video if you wish. It shows you some of the reasons why faking it from LEO just wasn't possible. www.youtube.com...


or the strange series of deaths surrounding the program, starting with Gus Grissom and his crew.


It was a horrible accident, but how was the Apollo 1 fire strange?


It's not even just about the way Armstrong won't discuss the mission


But he does and has talked about his experiences during Apollo. He does like to stay out of the spotlight though, but so what? Not everyone likes the attention.


It's not just about the failure of the LEM to stay aloft in tests, nearly killing Armstrong


That was not the LM, not even an LM prototype. It was called the Lunar Landing Research Vehicle (LLRV). It flew successfully many times, the reason for Armstrong's crash was because the Helium in propellant tanks had been depleted earlier than normal, dropping pressure needed to force hydrogen peroxide propellant to the attitude-control lift rockets and thrusters.

And Armstrong has said that, "The mission would not have been successful without the type of simulation provided by the LLRVs and LLTVs".


the way Grissom labeled the main Capsule a failure by hanging a lemon on the door handle during testing.


Sorry, but you are incorrect. He hung the lemon on the Command Module simulator. His reasons for doing so were because the CM simulator was not being kept up to date with the development of the real CM, thus him being upset with it. It was nothing more then that.


It's also about the background story, the drop in viability and payload of the rocket motors between the early 70s and the early 80s when the SS was put into service (the rockets should have gotten better, not worse).


Different rockets are designed for different goals. Some are meant to be heavy lift rockets like the Saturn V and the up and coming Ares V. Some are design for smaller, lighter payloads. The Shuttle was not designed or meant to go to the Moon and carry huge payloads. The goal was to design a reusable craft that could carry a maximum crew of 7 into orbit along with a reasonable sized payload. There are design limitations to everything. With your line of thought an 80's family sedan should out perform a 60's sports car because car engines should have gotten better right? Of course not. The design goals for a sedan are completely different then that of a sports car. The same applies to the Saturn and the Shuttle. Different designs with different goals. Thus they will not perform the same.



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 09:11 AM
link   
>BTW, do you know how small those Apollo laser reflectors were? They were only about 1-2 feet across, not even the size of a small computer desktop. Ask someone who insists that laser reflectors are proof of moon landings to calculate just how wide even a tight laser beam would be when it got to the moon. It's on the order of several tens of meters! The moon's surface is enough of a reflector to bounce back a laser. I doubt if anyone could reliably hit that small of a laser reflector with an Earth-based laser beam.

And you sometimes get some worth discussing... Even in THIS thread.


It would be quite interesting to be able to get the specs on the 'laser mirror arrays'...

Especially how the arrays AUTOMAGICALLY capture and refocus the diffused 'laser pulses'...



I also especially enjoyed this part Badge01...

'The moon's surface is enough of a reflector to bounce back a laser. '

It's a common misconception that mirrors are a superior reflecting surface... The are actually far inferior in reflecting capabilities than even a surface coated with simple white paint.

Hey JRA, what is the reflective percentage of the Moon surface?


jra

posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
It would be quite interesting to be able to get the specs on the 'laser mirror arrays'...

Especially how the arrays AUTOMAGICALLY capture and refocus the diffused 'laser pulses'...


You know, you can easily find the information if you just look for it yourself instead of waiting on others.

I'll give you a little start physics.ucsd.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...
physics.ucsd.edu...


It's a common misconception that mirrors are a superior reflecting surface... The are actually far inferior in reflecting capabilities than even a surface coated with simple white paint.


A surface painted white is going to diffuse the light, as in scatter it in all directions, where as a mirror will not.


Hey JRA, what is the reflective percentage of the Moon surface?


The Moons Albedo is .07 or 7%. Meaning it reflects 7% of the incoming Sunlight.



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by Badge01
What we really need is a photograph of the stars and constellations, taken from the moon, using an astrological telescope/camera. That would be nearly impossible to fake.

How would this help and what would it prove exactly? If one believes they can fake an entire Lunar program with fake photos and video, then why do you believe that adding stars in the photos would be so challenging and help to prove the legitimacy of the landings?

They could not take photos of the stars for a very few simple reasons. Long exposures needed to get the faint star light to expose on film, No tripod to keep the camera steady for long exposures, The sun was shining and the terrain would have greatly over exposed on the photos.


I'll answer your questions one by one...

An astrological telescope is a special instrument that allows viewing of the stars, and it is small enough that it could have been included on the first Apollo mission. Attach a camera with the right settings and it would have been easily possible to photograph the stars, as long as it was set up in a shadow (rock, behind the LEM), and pointed at the area of the sky not near the Sun. The correct film and exposure and we'd have had the most spectacular shots of the stellar background ever seen - no 'haze' of the atmosphere to interfere.

You tell me why they'd go to the moon and not take a shot of the stars. It's like driving to Mount Palomar and not looking up!

The reason it would prove we went to the moon is that the exact positions of the stars (relative to each other) would be easy for even advanced amateur astronomers to confirm. However there'd be too many stars in the photos for them to 'fake'. Also if they did try and fake them and were slightly off, then it would be detectable. They'd look like some of the early Hubble photos - very densely packed with stars (depending on the exposure time).

As far as 'proof' over all, you do realize that every expedition on Earth that goes to a previously unexplored location, such as the first expedition to the Antarctic required "Independent Verification". Such as another team going to the spot and seeing a flag of the expedition planted.

However there has NEVER been any independent verification that we went to the moon. None.

HTH



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by Badge01


The best thing would be a moon base that could be seen by terrestrial telescopes.

Read my previous post in regards to spotting things on the Moon with Earth based telescopes.


Uh, I'm not really planning to dig through the whole 71 pages to find one post. Perhaps you could summarize. Even the Hubble, which can and has taken a photo of the moon (despite people saying it couldn't because the moon is too close or too bright or something), does not have sufficient resolution to see anything under about 18 feet, iirc.


Badge: A radar or laser reflector could easily be placed by a remotely piloted vehicle, like the Russian rover. BTW, do you know how small those Apollo laser reflectors were? They were only about 1-2 feet across, not even the size of a small computer desktop. Ask someone who insists that laser reflectors are proof of moon landings to calculate just how wide even a tight laser beam would be when it got to the moon. It's on the order of several tens of meters! The moon's surface is enough of a reflector to bounce back a laser. I doubt if anyone could reliably hit that small of a laser reflector with an Earth-based laser beam.



JRA:You are correct that a remote vehicle could place the reflectors, but what rocket could have got it there? You can't exactly hide a launch. And if you believe that they can get an unmanned probe to the Moon, then why not people? Electronics are more easily affected and damaged by radiation than people are. So what in your mind would prevent people from going there and placing it themselves?

What vehicle, you ask? There have been several unmanned landings, most notably, the Russians, who landed and deployed a Rover. Electronics can be shielded, just wrap them in lead foil.

What would prevent people from going there? Intense hard radiation of the Van Allen Belts. Getting there might be possible, but the first difficult problem is getting back.

Before laser-guided bombs and missiles, which were developed around the time of the Gulf War (1980s), the closest we could come to a target on Earth with a missile, is several tens of yards. Note that 'the Star Wars Defense Initiative (SDI)' back in the 80s failed because we could not reliably get a missile close enough to a test target to destroy it.

Now you're telling me we could, even with human input, launch the LEM at the precise time that the orbiter was going over to allow us to rendezvous, and match speeds and then dock the first time we tried it (under Moon gravity)? We didn't even have GPS devices. If the launch of the LEM for the return was off even by 1/2 a second, we would not have been able to match the orbit and velocity of the Orbiter.

Buzz Aldrin said recently that the chances of success of the mission was only 1 in 3. Well the chances of not being able to re-dock with the Orbiter was a lot lower than that. I think there was one chance in 10 or 20 that we'd make it, though I don't have a cite for that. (I heard it on a documentary that I saw in the 80s).

Going to the moon and coming back is, imo, equivalent to a blind golfer getting more than one hole-in-one the first time he tried it (using 60s technology).

We totally SKIPPED building a Space Station first, for god's sake, man!

Think about it. Imagine how difficult it is even now to rendezvous with another space vehicle. They use computers to match orbits, and even then it's dicey. Of course they had the Gemini series back then, but they weren't trying to do it with a flimsy LEM with the computing power less than that today's wristwatches or a tiny credit card calculator. I'd have to go research the Gemini program again, but I don't think they had success the first time they tried to dock, either.

We'd never been under Moon gravity. So we had to calculate all that out before hand on Earth and pray that the numbers were correct.


jra

posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Badge01
You tell me why they'd go to the moon and not take a shot of the stars. It's like driving to Mount Palomar and not looking up!


The stars won't look drastically different from the Moon, yeah less haze and what not, but the main purpose was to study the moon.

Apollo 16 did have a UV telescope though. www.lpi.usra.edu...


As far as 'proof' over all, you do realize that every expedition on Earth that goes to a previously unexplored location, such as the first expedition to the Antarctic required "Independent Verification". Such as another team going to the spot and seeing a flag of the expedition planted.

However there has NEVER been any independent verification that we went to the moon. None.


Amature radio HAM operators were able to listen in on the transmissions. They'd notice if the signals were coming from the Moon or not. Amature astronomers also saw Apollo traveling to the moon and were able to measure it's redshift. I had a webpage that showed photos, trying to find it again.

Also what about the Russians? You bet they'd be the first to claim it as a hoax if they believed it to be.


Originally posted by Badge01

Originally posted by jra
Read my previous post in regards to spotting things on the Moon with Earth based telescopes.


Uh, I'm not really planning to dig through the whole 71 pages to find one post.


My previous post, the one on this page (page 71)


jra said:

In order to resolve extreme detail on the surface of the Moon from an Earth based telescope. The thing would have to be about 200 meters in diameter, if I remember right. Currently the largest telescope has a mirror that's 10 meters in diameter. It's better to use a satellite in low orbit.



What vehicle, you ask? There have been several unmanned landings, most notably, the Russians, who landed and deployed a Rover. Electronics can be shielded, just wrap them in lead foil.


Yes but those Russian rovers are accounted for. And still, if you believe they can land unmanned probes and rovers, why not people too?

lead can be bad for shielding against beta radiation. It will create a secondary radiation when hit by the electrons. So lead isn't necessarily the best radiation shield. It can also be rather heavy, which makes it somewhat impractical. And I don't recall any probes ever using lead foil.


What would prevent people from going there? Intense hard radiation of the Van Allen Belts. Getting there might be possible, but the first difficult problem is getting back.


So if the Van Allen belts are so deadly, how do we manage to have so many satellites in orbit all functioning normally? How come this "Intense hard radiation" doesn't damage them? And again, no satellite that I know of has any lead shielding of any kind.

Also I'd like to quote the man himself to whom the belts are named after,

"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen

I'd also like to point out that every commercial company that makes satellites uses the data collected by NASA and other space agencies. If this data were false to hide the "Intense hard radiation" of the belts, then we should a lot of malfunctioning satellites.


Before laser-guided bombs and missiles, which were developed around the time of the Gulf War (1980s), the closest we could come to a target on Earth with a missile, is several tens of yards. Note that 'the Star Wars Defense Initiative (SDI)' back in the 80s failed because we could not reliably get a missile close enough to a test target to destroy it.


What about artillery shells though? Back as far as WW2, they were able to lob shells for miles, accounting for drag, wind, spin, horizon drop, elevation etc. All with mechanical calculators.

Oh an the V-1 rockets managed to launch from occupied France all the way to London with a mechanical autopilot consisting of nothing more than a pendulum, compass, and a tiny propeller counting how many times it turned through the air.

My point being, you shouldn't underestimate what people can do without computers. We've accomplished many great things without them.


Now you're telling me we could, even with human input, launch the LEM at the precise time that the orbiter was going over to allow us to rendezvous, and match speeds and then dock the first time we tried it (under Moon gravity)? We didn't even have GPS devices. If the launch of the LEM for the return was off even by 1/2 a second, we would not have been able to match the orbit and velocity of the Orbiter.


It's really not that hard to figure it all out as you try to make it seem. They knew the speed and altitude at which the CSM was orbiting, they knew when it would pass over the landing site, they knew how long it would take for the LM to reach that altitude. Just do the math, (which was done by the people on the ground). It doesn't require massive, complex computing power on board either spacecraft, a lot of it is just timing. They practiced this a lot in Earth orbit, Apollo 10 practiced it in Lunar orbit. How do you think NASA docked with the Skylab back in the 70's? What about the Russians and there Salyut space stations? Was that all fake too?


We totally SKIPPED building a Space Station first, for god's sake, man!


Well it was a race to the Moon wasn't it?


Think about it. Imagine how difficult it is even now to rendezvous with another space vehicle. They use computers to match orbits, and even then it's dicey. Of course they had the Gemini series back then, but they weren't trying to do it with a flimsy LEM with the computing power less than that today's wristwatches or a tiny credit card calculator. I'd have to go research the Gemini program again, but I don't think they had success the first time they tried to dock, either.


But you admit that they could dock with the technology of that time? The first rendezvous in space weren't 100% successful no, but that was the whole point, to learn how. By the time of Apollo, they had practiced a lot and knew what to do.

And what about the LM is "flimsy"? It was a very sturdy vehicle. Just because it's outer covering was mostly foil, doesn't mean the vehicle itself was "flimsy".


We'd never been under Moon gravity. So we had to calculate all that out before hand on Earth and pray that the numbers were correct.


What about all the missions to the moon prior to Apollo 11? The Ranger, Surveyor and Lunar Orbiter probes and landers? They told us many things about the Moon. Plus Apollo 8 and 10 went to the Moon as well.

[edit on 4-3-2007 by jra]



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 08:23 PM
link   
>'The stars won't look drastically different from the Moon, yeah less haze and what not, but the main purpose was to study the moon.'

'Less haze'... You're kidding right?

***cou Hubble telescope gh***



The reason I was asking about the 'specs' is that the accepted rule of thumb of reflective value of light for a household mirror is around 65% vs. ordinary painted white surfaces being somewhere in the vicinity of 90%.

If you look at the published numbers for the 'ranging' returns... (Swooossshhhh good buddy. ...hand passing over your head JRA.
)

I'm just wondering WHEN it's going to finally sink in JRA that the 'laser arrays' are a big flop...

and basically just a vaporware PR mechanism...

devoid of ANY real significance in their intended goal.



If our pals manning the 'laser cannon' had any real intent of supporting the contentions they advance, we would be using mega high speed mega high density optical equipment showing REAL RECORDINGS of the synched pulses completing their highly diffused return trips.

I originally went looking at the 'laser arrays' believing it would provide a verifiable lock that there was IN FACT A HUMAN ARTIFACT on the Moon...

All I got was...

Just another one of those anamolies NASA apologists are only able to refute with the typical rhetoric of the true believer...



[edit on 4-3-2007 by golemina]



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 08:36 PM
link   


The stars won't look drastically different from the Moon, yeah less haze and what not, but the main purpose was to study the moon.


This is asinine. Yes, the stars will look as different from the moon as they do with the HST.

Two reasons to go to the moon. 1. Get the high ground for military purposes and get a cold war PR victory. 2. Photograph the moon and the stars from the moon.

You can't be serious if you think it makes sense to go to the moon and not take any time exposures of the stars. The UV telescope was present, but they never released any footage.

Wonder why?


jra

posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Badge01
This is asinine. Yes, the stars will look as different from the moon as they do with the HST.


What I meant by them not looking different is there position. You wouldn't be able to tell if they were taken from the Earth or the Moon if all you were looking at were the constellations. Plus you'd also need some rather long exposures to get the amount of light that Hubble does for some of its images. Generally images from Hubble are images combined from multiple exposures taken through various filters and then combined. The total amount of time can be hours worth of exposures. The astronauts already had enough work to do.


You can't be serious if you think it makes sense to go to the moon and not take any time exposures of the stars.


The goal of Apollo was to go to the Moon and study the Moon. Not to take pics of the stars which we can already do on Earth. Even if they did manage to bring a tripod and telescope, the quality wouldn't be as good as Hubble.


The UV telescope was present, but they never released any footage.

Wonder why?


No I don't. Because I've seen them.

www.apolloexplorer.co.uk...
www.apolloexplorer.co.uk...
www.apolloexplorer.co.uk...
www.apolloexplorer.co.uk...
www.apolloexplorer.co.uk...
www.apolloexplorer.co.uk...

Oh and I found that link regarding amature astronomers viewing various Apollo missions as they traveled to the Moon. Here's the link. www.astr.ua.edu... So there's your independent verification.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 68  69  70    72  73  74 >>

log in

join