Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

page: 72
29
<< 69  70  71    73  74  75 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 01:55 AM
link   

JRA wrote: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


Exactly that is why they are looking at a water jacket around the liviing quarters of the Mars manned space craft.




posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 08:36 AM
link   
They did fake it and just because some modern "evidence" on some doumentaries has cropt up, using todays advanced CGI ability it shouldn´t be a suprise or a reason to suddenly believe in it..

Why should they fake it? because in them days Russian was far more advanced & taking a lead in the space race among other reasons.

technology has advanced amazingly since the end of the 60´s, so why has no one been to the moon "again" from other countries like Russia or China for example, it´d be an excellent achievment for any country.

The Fact is no Earth originating creature has ever been past the Van Alan belts and survived using earth based technology.

And the mars landings,
come on them pictures could have come from anywhere. Wake up and see throught the illusion


jra

posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Ah, the same old statements with nothing to back them up. How typical...


Originally posted by bicnarok
Why should they fake it? because in them days Russian was far more advanced & taking a lead in the space race among other reasons.


Oh really? Could you state how they were more advanced or are you just parroting what you read on some Apollo hoax webpage?

The Russian's were not "far more advanced". They were ahead for a while in the beginning, but by the time of the Gemini program they had fallen behind. The Russians took too many risks and eventually cosmonauts began to pay the price due to accidents. The failure of the N1 Rocket was pretty much the final straw.


technology has advanced amazingly since the end of the 60´s, so why has no one been to the moon "again"


Why no one has gone again? It's simply just due to lack of money and lack of public and political will. NASA can't do anything unless the Government gives them the money and the Government tends to neglect the space program a lot.


from other countries like Russia or China for example, it´d be an excellent achievment for any country.


Both China and India are making plans to go to the Moon at some point in the near future. And the US will be going again as i'm sure you know.


The Fact is no Earth originating creature has ever been past the Van Alan belts and survived using earth based technology.


A fact eh? If it's such a fact. I don't suppose you could back it up?

Like I said on the previous page. Electronics are more easily damaged by radiation than humans. We have thousands of satellites in orbit that are operating within the belts. How do they manage to survive? Fact is the Van Allen belts are not as deadly as some try to claim it is. Fact is there are many other space agencies all over the world that can check for themselves with there own equipment. If NASA had lied about the belts, others would have found out a long time ago.


And the mars landings,
come on them pictures could have come from anywhere. Wake up and see throught the illusion


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Where is yours?

[edit on 5-3-2007 by jra]



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 05:53 PM
link   
I believe we landed on the moon and that we were told not to go back. Just my belief. Everybody keeps saying fact is bla, bla, bla, but where are your facts. You shouldn't say" fact is " unless you have the proof of that fact. Like I said I only belive we landed on the moon but could only prove it if I was there.

[edit on 3/5/2007 by Solarskye]



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 10:50 AM
link   



From the Apollo 17 Moon Landing, put gold visor down too late.
Anyone know that man, any id.

Oops they did it again. Too bad. And Mission Control
has no transmission delay. Yet years later satellite
communications around the world have such delays.

Looking back from UFO era of the 50s, it was unreal
that rocket technology was being used in the 60s to go
to the Moon. Then again what did hippies know, too
many drugs taking 'trips' to nowhere.

So the LEM was never used. Put me in charge of your
Billion dollar project for one million dollars, pinky
finger by the lip, and Mum's the word.



Anyone debunk that all earth images were a projection
and no Sun or stars. Einstein rolled over in his grave on this one,
you do not need atmosphere to see stars.
Einstein will not excuse the lack of gravity in space
from making star light travel, cause it does.
The only proof is video, the bunkers proof is reason.
The bunkers just do not have it right.
Helium life support packs and heavy fine dust as found
at Mount St. Helen. Its all down to claims and counter claims.




Thats a cool series of bunk and debunk videos.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Fact is the Van Allen belts are not as deadly as some try to claim it is. Fact is there are many other space agencies all over the world that can check for themselves with there own equipment. If NASA had lied about the belts, others would have found out a long time ago.


Actually, there was a news broadcast a few years ago saying that the VA belts were more deadly than originally thought.

www.sciencedaily.com...

Also consider Project Argus - possibly an attempt to blast a hole in the VA belts.


[edit on 6-3-2007 by Badge01]



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne



Thats a cool series of bunk and debunk videos.


prove they aren't fake fakes


jra

posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Badge01
Actually, there was a news broadcast a few years ago saying that the VA belts were more deadly than originally thought.


The electrons are energized to speeds much higher than previously thought, yes, but the are still not deadly if you are just flying through them. Satellites that have 3mm of aluminum shielding receive 25 Sv per year in the belts and they still operate. The highest radiation dosage received out of all the Apollo missions was by Apollo 14. It was 0.0285 Sv. The legal limit per year for people who work with radio active material is 0.05 Sv. That's 1/700 the lethal dose for humans. So I really don't think the Apollo astronauts had much to worry about when coasting through the belts.



posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 01:28 PM
link   
They won´t waste hubble time trying to prove something they don´t want to. There is no reason to, I mean its not as if there are mass demonstrations on the streets for truth.

Plus considering todays technology, anything is possible. Anyone could use a PC to produce pictures of the landing site, or even release some well rendered video they "found" in a vault somewhere proving it.

It will never be proven for or against unless someone inside speaks out, and even then that person might "dissapear".

No one has ever passed the Van Allen belts in a man made Space vehicle imo.



posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Oblate Spheroid


It will never be proven for or against unless someone inside speaks out, and even then that person might "dissapear".





do you mean one of the 400,000 employees working at nasa at the time ?


I'm curious to know what you think of the moon rocks they brought back, and the mirrors they left behind. Wouldn't that be proof we were there ?

Bringing something back, and leaving something behind is pretty concrete.


jra

posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Oblate Spheroid
It will never be proven for or against unless someone inside speaks out, and even then that person might "dissapear".


Emphasis mine.

So if some one who worked on the Apollo program speaks out that it did happen, that's proof enough for you? I believe many have spoken for it.
Also a lot of the people who did work on the Apollo program have either retired or passed away. You'd think that if it were faked, there would have been numerous deathbed confessions and the like. But not one person from the "inside" has come forward.


No one has ever passed the Van Allen belts in a man made Space vehicle imo.


You stated something similar in your previous post. What makes you believe this to be true?



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 04:15 AM
link   
Nobody in 1969 - but even today - would have been able to land a rocket going backwards because LEM would have fallen off in all direction at 360 degrees.
There were a ridiculous computer and more ridiculous gyroscopes that allowed Armstrong to drive that incredibly ridiculous rocket.
But Armstrong, because of an error in the computer, had to land the LEM manually moving a more and more ridiculous joystick.
IMPOSSIBLE FOR A MAN TO KEEP VERTICAL A ROCKET THRUSTED FROM THE BOTTOM, PILOTING IT INSIDE IT.
YOU ARE INCREDIBLE GULLIBLE PEOPLE THAT THINK SATURN IMAGES MADE BY SOFTIMAGE, MAYA OR 3D STUDIO MAX ARE REAL.






[edit on 30-3-2007 by bigbrain]


jra

posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 07:55 PM
link   


I know I shouldn't bother replying to this, but...


Originally posted by bigbrain
Nobody in 1969 - but even today - would have been able to land a rocket going backwards because LEM would have fallen off in all direction at 360 degrees.


Why can't a rocket powered vehicle land on the ground? What evidence do you have that shows they can't? I'm going to guess none and that this is just your uninformed opinion.


There were a ridiculous computer and more ridiculous gyroscopes that allowed Armstrong to drive that incredibly ridiculous rocket.


What's ridiculous about the computer? Sure it seems primitive today, but you don't need an advanced computer to control the spacecraft.


But Armstrong, because of an error in the computer, had to land the LEM manually moving a more and more ridiculous joystick.


Actually the computer error was nothing more than parts of its memory being overloaded with data from the rendezvous radar. Nothing serious at all. And that had nothing to do with why Armstrong had to take manual control. The reason from Armstrong taking over control was to avoid landing in a field of large boulders.


IMPOSSIBLE FOR A MAN TO KEEP VERTICAL A ROCKET THRUSTED FROM THE BOTTOM, PILOTING IT INSIDE IT.


Umm, no it's not. By your reasoning all rockets are fake then?


YOU ARE INCREDIBLE GULLIBLE PEOPLE THAT THINK SATURN IMAGES MADE BY SOFTIMAGE, MAYA OR 3D STUDIO MAX ARE REAL.


Wrong thread. And you shouldn't go around calling people gullible. Especially when you provide no information or evidence to support your opinions. You come off sounding like nothing more than a troll.



posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 12:44 AM
link   
jra

keep fighting the fight. I enjoy your posts and Byrd's the most on this entire site.

I tried to vote you way above, but

"You have already voted for jra this month."


apc

posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 01:19 AM
link   
I think jra is just bored.

Very, very, very bored.



posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra

1 - Why can't a rocket powered vehicle land on the ground? What evidence do you have that shows they can't? I'm going to guess none and that this is just your uninformed opinion.

2 - What's ridiculous about the computer? Sure it seems primitive today, but you don't need an advanced computer to control the spacecraft.

3 - Actually the computer error was nothing more than parts of its memory being overloaded with data from the rendezvous radar. Nothing serious at all. And that had nothing to do with why Armstrong had to take manual control. The reason from Armstrong taking over control was to avoid landing in a field of large boulders.

4 - IMPOSSIBLE FOR A MAN TO KEEP VERTICAL A ROCKET THRUSTED FROM THE BOTTOM, PILOTING IT INSIDE IT.
Umm, no it's not. By your reasoning all rockets are fake then?



LEM had a swinging, oscillating rocket engine at the bottom.
Only a powerful computer would have been able to control the engine to counteract gravity forces that made LEM falling off in all directions at 360 degrees.
But that computer had 2k RAM.
I think not even today computers would be able to keep LEM vertical.
Try to keep vertical a coke can on your finger tip.



posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 06:34 AM
link   
o cmon we all love to make conspiracies out of nowhere but now we have laser satelites and space ships u dont think we have landed ot the moon yet?



posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unisol
o cmon we all love to make conspiracies out of nowhere but now we have laser satelites and space ships u dont think we have landed ot the moon yet?


Satellites and space ships are nothing in comparison with landing on the moon and coming back home.


Ha, Ha, Ha, Armstrong on the earth learnt to land with this ridiculous aircraft



Then he landed on the moon with this tremendously ridiculous aircraft totally different


In this studio Nasa buffoons built landing scenario






[edit on 31-3-2007 by bigbrain]


jra

posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
keep fighting the fight. I enjoy your posts and Byrd's the most on this entire site.


Thanks for the comment, I appreciate it. I also enjoy Byrd's posts too.


Originally posted by apc
I think jra is just bored.

Very, very, very bored.


haha perhaps a bit, yeah.

And here we go again...


Originally posted by bigbrain
LEM had a swinging, oscillating rocket engine at the bottom. Only a powerful computer would have been able to control the engine to counteract gravity forces that made LEM falling off in all directions at 360 degrees. But that computer had 2k RAM. I think not even today computers would be able to keep LEM vertical. Try to keep vertical a coke can on your finger tip.


Your popcan analogy is very bad and not at all comparable to how the LM flies. Also you can't judge a computers ability on its memory size alone. Please tell me specifically how powerful a computer one would need to be. I'd like to see some actual numbers and the requirements that you feel would be necessary for an LM computer. And please show your calculations you used to arrive at each requirement. Come on don't be shy, surely you can do that.


Ha, Ha, Ha, Armstrong on the earth learnt to land with this ridiculous aircraft


You really like the word "ridiculous" don't you? And what's ridiculous about it? It was extremely helpful for training the astronauts. Armstrong even said that the mission would not have been successful without the type of simulation provided by the LLRVs and LLTVs.

Instead of just making ridiculous, unfounded claims. I suggest you try learning more about how things actually worked.



posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Gyro stabilization , Attitude adjustment and LEM engine management : for dummies

Contrary to HBer claims , the computer controlled attitude stabilization system on the LEM Did NOT require large amounts of memory or processing power

The attitude adjustment system – is far simpler than HBers would have you believe

Infact it is quite straight forward Newtonian physics [ action = reaction ]

The computer could calculator , even with little RAM many such calculations – as almost no stored data was required

Neither inputs , nor outputs needed to be cached – as they were all real time

[ this is why the computer was needed – the ability to accurately make multiple calculations / second ]

Input { measured roll – from gyro } > calculate required correction > output { signal to gimball actuators }

As you can see – a quite simple set up

Craft yaws > gyro senses yaw > computer calculates required thrust correction > gimball is slewed to compensate > REPEAT

All that is required are :

Inputs :

Degree of yaw
Current thrust
Current gimball angle
CoG [ centre of gravity ] – changes as fuel is expended

Calculation :

The difference between actual attitude and desired attitude [ degrees ] generates a given gimball vector required to correct the yaw

This is – a quite simple if X , then Y calculation

Outputs :

New gimbal angle [ actuators ]
New thrust [ throttle positions ]

It really is that simple – and as multiple corrections / second are being made

The true “ bottleneck “ governing how many calculations could be acted upon was not the computer itself , but the actuators which pivoted the gimball .

The computer – even one as basic as the LEM flight computer was quite capable of analyzing 1000s of gyro inputs and calculating the correct reaction thrust every second – but as actuators could only react @ a finite rate .

In this instance – REAL TIME reactions are required – having hundreds of calculations backed up in a buffer is pointless

That is why additional memory would not have helped the situation .




[edit on 31-3-2007 by ignorant_ape]









 
29
<< 69  70  71    73  74  75 >>

log in

join