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: 85
29
<< 82  83  84    86  87  88 >>

log in

join
share:
jra

posted on Jun, 6 2007 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Badge01
So, lol, why is this a challenge if it had already been done (orbital landing module) back in 1969?


A challenge as in, a competition. Just like how the first X Prize was a challenge. Yet suborbital vehicles had been done as far back at 1959. This is a challenge for privately funded companies, which helps to accelerate the development of these technologies for use in commercial space flight.


BTW, note how the Pixel is basically symmetric, unlike the unwieldy LEM.

There a good reason for that, ya know.


Do tell please.




posted on Jun, 6 2007 @ 11:43 PM
link   
There is an error in my previous post. This is the right one:


Dear Jra,

(Snip)

You say: “It was tested in Earth orbit. What do you think the Mercury and Gemini programs were for? The LM was also tested in Earth and Lunar orbit before landing on the Moon”.


How can you test the landing of a rocket that must land going backwards in orbit?

(Snip)

You say: "If rocket. The DC-X is one such example. There are some private space companies out there developing similar craft.

Also this ridiculous rocket can't land going backwards (videos are fake) But if it could do it...

Doesn't it seem to you completely different from Lem?

What's that got to do with Lem?

(Snip)



jra

posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigbrain
How can you test the landing of a rocket that must land going backwards in orbit?


You said:


Nobody would have gone to the moon with a spacecraft never tested on the earth.


I took this to mean you were referring to the CSM as well. But we've also talked about the LLRV/LLTV. The LM itself won't work on Earth, it's designed to land on the Moon. And the only way to test that is to actually land it on the Moon.


Also this ridiculous rocket can't land going backwards (videos are fake)




Please show me proof that these videos are fake. Simply stating that they are fake isn't proof, it's just downright ignorant.


But if it could do it...

Doesn't it seem to you completely different from Lem?

What's that got to do with Lem?


It's different in appearance but the concept is very much the same in that it's a rocket that takes off and lands vertically. So it's related to the LM. I don't know why you can't make that connection on your own.



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 02:14 PM
link   
I wrote:

"Doesn't it seem to you completely different from LEM?

What's that got to do with LEM?

You wrote:

"It's different in appearance but the concept is very much the same in that it's a rocket that takes off and lands vertically. So it's related to the LM. I don't know why you can't make that connection on your own".

Because I am intelligent:

Go to en.wikipedia.org... and read carefully:

"The DC-X, short for Delta Clipper or Delta Clipper Experimental, was an unmanned prototype of a reusable single stage to orbit launch vehicle built by McDonnell Douglas in conjunction with the DOD's SDIO from 1991 to 1993"

LEM was built in 1969, Delta Clipper was built from 1991 to 1993.

That is a great difference, 21-23 years after.

But Delta Clipper is another greatest crap. Look at this video:

video.google.com...




Why "An End to the Moon Conspiracy" is no longer at the top?

Many people read my posts.



[edit on 7-6-2007 by bigbrain]



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 04:18 PM
link   
BIGBRAIN :

how typically dishonest of you to have ommitted the REASON for that acciodent from your " analysis "

i will quote :


A short film of the DC-X (Delta Clipper) experiencing a ground crew caused failure that resulted in a fire.


puts it in perpective


jra

posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigbrain
LEM was built in 1969, Delta Clipper was built from 1991 to 1993.

That is a great difference, 21-23 years after.


And what does the age difference have to do with anything? Your claim is that a rocket can not land backwards. What do the LM and DC-X have in common? Both rocket powered, both land backwards and have successfully done so. Yes, the DC-X tipped over, but that was due to a disconnected hydraulic line to one of its landing struts and it didn't extend, thus tipping over.

There are also several private companies developing VTOL rockets. There's Blue Origin, Armadilo Aerospace and Masten Space Systems to name a few.

But I guess you think those are all fake too right?



But Delta Clipper is another greatest crap. Look at this video:

video.google.com...


But according to you the videos are fake. So do you believe that this is real or not? This also brings up the question as to why one would make a fake video of there vehicle crashing. And the DC-X made about a dozen successful test flights before this one you linked to.



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 07:06 PM
link   
bigbrain, this topic is not on top because many people read YOUR posts.
"Flat Earth Society" with jra as their president was humiliated...and the topic had to be removed from the eyes of the average visitor.


jra

posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by swimmer
bigbrain, this topic is not on top because many people read YOUR posts.
"Flat Earth Society" with jra as their president was humiliated...and the topic had to be removed from the eyes of the average visitor.


What the hell are you talking about? You make no sense at all...

[edit on 7-6-2007 by jra]



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 09:13 PM
link   
...I was talking to bigbrain. When I talk to you, I will make it simpler.
Sorry.



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Badge01


LUNAR LANDER CHALLENGE




So, lol, why is this a challenge if it had already been done...???
...





In fact. Why should they challenge to build a Lunar Lander?

NASA BSJ have already done it in 1969 and now have a terrible new technology to build Landers.







posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigbrain
In fact. Why should they challenge to build a Lunar Lander?

< SNIP >OT idiocy


yeah dogs - this is getting tedious

the challenged to build a new lander is very well described :

the Apollo LEM was fine , for what it was designed for .

the specifications for ALL post Apollo space craft designs / challenges have stipulated :

re useable design

greater payload

greater endurance

it is these points that render the apollo LEM obsolete - the 6 apollo missions tested its capabilities to the limit

for future missions - we will need a craft that can sustain a prolonged maned prseence on the moon

that is why we need a new lander - why cann you not get that simple concept into your head ?

to put it another way - why have any new automobiles been sesigned since FORD designed the model T in 1908 ?

the model t worked

what ? you want to go further / faster / cary more passengers and cargo , gave greater reliability etc etc etc ???

that is big brains " logic "

if he ran the world - would we all still be driving model tee fords ?



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 02:49 PM
link   
If they say that Hubble is not powerful enough to show the moon landing sites ( apparently Hubble can pinpoint something around football size object..... coz size of its collecting mirrors would not permit such thing), and Clementine Lunar orbiter just show us the area where Apollo 15 landed...military spy satellites are in low orbit near Earth - that lives us with hope that Japanese Selene project will give us some proof - it is soooooo loooooong delayed program, that I am eagerly waiting this summer.



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Hi Swimmer,

look at these videos that Ira, Flat Earth Society President, indicated and enjoy:

public.blueorigin.com...

They are completely fake. Observe the great smoke when the rocket begins to raise and no smoke when it flyes.
All are nice videos but the best is video number 3





[edit on 8-6-2007 by bigbrain]


jra

posted on Jun, 9 2007 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by blue bird
If they say that Hubble is not powerful enough to show the moon landing sites ( apparently Hubble can pinpoint something around football size object


A football sized object from what range though?


that lives us with hope that Japanese Selene project will give us some proof - it is soooooo loooooong delayed program, that I am eagerly waiting this summer.


The SELENE project looks really good and I hope all goes well with it for JAXA, but don't get your hopes up in regards to seeing any Apollo artifacts. The highest res camera on the probe has a 10m per pixel res. You'll have to wait till Oct. 2008 for the LRO with it's .5m per pixel res camera.


Originally posted by bigbrain
Observe the great smoke when the rocket begins to raise and no smoke when it flyes.


The New Shepard craft uses High test peroxide (HTP) and RP-1 kerosene for propellant. If you look at other rockets that use RP-1, they don't leave a trail of smoke either unlike, for example, the Space Shuttle. Take a look at images of the Titan rockets from the Gemini program or Soyuz rockets. You'll see flames, but no long trail of smoke.

And a lot of that smoke you see at the beginning of the video is more than likely just dust and sand on the pad.

[edit on 9-6-2007 by jra]



posted on Jun, 9 2007 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra
...

And a lot of that smoke you see at the beginning of the video is more than likely just dust and sand on the pad.







Look again at the video

public.blueorigin.com...

Smoke finishes too quickly.

During flight and landing there are no flames.

If you think this video is real, you are without hope.

However the LUNAR LANDER CHALLENGE proves that nobody till now has been able to land a rocket going backwards.

Look also at these videos that you indicated

www.masten-space.com...

What is that old crock? What are they doing?

Surely they are closest to win the challenge.




posted on Jun, 9 2007 @ 11:43 PM
link   
bigbrain, thanks for sharing the videos...another educational moment.

Only, you forget one thing: in democracy, if you convince 51% of voters into anything - it becomes official truth. Therefore, if you want your arguments to stand, you have to make the ignorant majority understand them. Small problem is...you will never have access to media to even try to pass the message.

So, jra will forever win this discussion. He has the media. You have provided a number of obvious facts but he (and the rest of Flat Earth Society) can forever drag the discussion and keep the 51% confused, enough to keep the FES laws intact. He does not need to elaborate correctly, just close enough to make his statements scientific-like.

So, you are right for not taking this discussion completely seriously - your bonus is: you can have fun while they have to work hard to continue the illusion...


Thanks again for your endurance...



posted on Jun, 12 2007 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Hi Swimmer,


thanks to Armadillo Aerospace efforts, future Astronauts will go to the moon this way:


www.geocities.com...





posted on Jun, 15 2007 @ 12:53 PM
link   
the original landing's proof was simply faked,.. but that doesnt mean the landing didnt occur. We just wanted the smoking gun to say we are the strongest country and always will be.



posted on Jun, 15 2007 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by blowfishdl
the original landing's proof was simply faked,.. but that doesnt mean the landing didnt occur. We just wanted the smoking gun to say we are the strongest country and always will be.


What does it mean "smoking gun"?



jra

posted on Jun, 15 2007 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by blowfishdl
the original landing's proof was simply faked


Then I suppose you could simply provide some evidence to back up that claim?




top topics



 
29
<< 82  83  84    86  87  88 >>

log in

join