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: 96
29
<< 93  94  95    97  98  99 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 06:55 PM
link   

How could this very strange thing - that lifted off from the moon without an engine that pushed it: do you see flames and smoke? – join to the rocket that orbited around the moon? With binoculars


OK this statement proves your fundamental lack of understanding.

Do I see flames?? NO of course I don't, it's not that type of engine. Simple as that.

For example, you don't see flames with an ion engine but it works.
You don't see flames from a prop plane but they work.
For that matter, you don't see flames from model rocket engines but they work. By the way, before you tell me I'm wrong about model rockets... I used to build them and launch them ALL THE TIME.




posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 07:55 PM
link   
skepticfriend wrote,

How could this very strange thing - that lifted off from the moon without an engine that pushed it: do you see flames and smoke? – join to the rocket that orbited around the moon? With binoculars?


Look at this video of the debut flight of the F-22 Raptor. Notice any flames or smoke coming out of the plane engine???? NO YOU DON'T.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
...

Do I see flames?? NO of course I don't, it's not that type of engine. Simple as that.

For example, you don't see flames with an ion engine but it works.
You don't see flames from a prop plane but they work.
For that matter, you don't see flames from model rocket engines but they work. By the way, before you tell me I'm wrong about model rockets... I used to build them and launch them ALL THE TIME.



Look at this video of the debut flight of the F-22 Raptor. Notice any flames or smoke coming out of the plane engine???? NO YOU DON'T.

www.youtube.com...



How old are you? 13 or 15?

Your excitement to have the winning idea misleads you.

We are not talking about ion engines, prop planes, model rocket engines, but about ascent stage of LEM.

These are its characteristics: en.wikipedia.org...
Ascent Stage
• Crew: 2
• Crew cabin volume: 6.65 m³
• Height: 3.54 m
• Diameter: 4.27 m
• Ascent Stage Mass: 4,547 kg
• Ascent Engine Propellants: 2,358 kg
• RCS Thrust: 16 × 440 N
• RCS Propellants: N2O4/UDMH
• RCS Specific Impulse Isp: 290 s (2.84 kN•s/kg)
• Ascent Engine Thrust: 16 kN
• Ascent Engine Propellants: N2O4/Aerozine 50 (UDMH/N2H4)
• Ascent Engine Engine Isp: 311 s (3.05 kN•s/kg)
• Ascent Stage Delta-V: 2.22 km/s
• Electric System Batteries: 17 kW•h, 800 A•h


• Ascent Engine Propellants: N2O4/Aerozine 50 (UDMH/N2H4)

This is the same propellant of this rocket
en.wikipedia.org...




Don’t you see smoke?

Some people are still trying to invent a rocket that can land going backwards

space.newscientist.com...

If Grumman was famous for building the Apollo Lunar Module, why would have proclaimed the Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge?

Grumman should already have that technology.

And then?

That technology does not exist even today. Just fancy in 1969.


[edit on 10-8-2007 by skepticfriend]



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 06:23 PM
link   
interesting picture you have there.
I assume the rocket is landing on the moon and not lifting off from earth?
Also is the Titan rocket approximately the same mass as the lander?
Do they require the same amount of propellant to achieve acceleration/deceleration?
Are the propellants in the same mixture?

Actually, I assumed you were around 13 or 14 because your arguments are a bit off.

Also keep in mind, flame burns differently in low and micro gravity, and in space versus earth. Flames can become almost invisible



jra

posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by skepticfriend
Try to balance a coke can on your finger tip. It will fall off in all directions at 360 degrees.


Which, again, is not comparible to LM.

Some things to take note of:

-The Decent module (bottom half) is about twice the mass as the Ascent module (top half). This places its center of mass somewhere in the decent module. And not in the very middle of the LM.

-Thrust from a rocket does not start at the bottom of the rocket bell, it starts at the top. And the top of the rocket bell on the Decent module is well inside the decent module and no doubt, closer to its center of mass, thus making it much more balanced than a coke can on ones finger, which has its mass uniformly distributed through out the whole can.

So it's clearly not comparible at all. If you still disagree, then please privide more evidence to support your argument. Provide some numbers and show me the math as to why you think it's like balancing a coke can on a finger.


Have you ever seen flying test of LEM? No, why? Because in 1969 computer that would have had to control the gimballed rocket engine and the other thrusters was too slow to counteract lack of balance due to the infinite gravity forces of the LEM pushed from the bottom.


As I said in my previous post, could you provide any evidence for this statement? What kind of computer is needed, what does it need to do exactly that requires so much computing power? I'd like some hard numbers to back up your statement. You must know since you said it wasn't powerful enough, so if you could prvide that data, that would be great thanks.


How could this very strange thing - that lifted off from the moon without an engine that pushed it: do you see flames and smoke? – join to the rocket that orbited around the moon? With binoculars?


There was a rocket, but just because you don't see flames doesn't mean it's not there providing thrust. The type of fuel used for the LM, (N2O4/Aerozine 50) is not very visible at all. Your example of the Titain III isn't a good choice. The bright flames you are seeing are from its solid rocket boosters. That is not powered by the N2O4/Aerozine 50 propellant.

Insted, look at a Titan II. As you can see here, the flames are somewhat visible. They aren't nearly as bright as say something from a Saturn V or the Shuttle. Also remember that the LM's rocket wasn't nearly as powerful as the Titan II rocket, so that decreases the chance of seeing any thrust.


If Grumman was famous for building the Apollo Lunar Module, why would have proclaimed the Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge?


The challenge is for the private industy to develop the technology. If you'd have gone to the website you would have read that. It's similar to the X-prize. And also, if you had looked more into this challenge, you would see that there are a number of teams, some with working prototypes, which I had posted links to a number of pages ago. They work, the techonolgy is there. It's not as hard as you're making it out to be.



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 07:04 PM
link   
FROM REUTERS


BEIJING - China aims to chart every inch of the moon’s surface, the chief scientist of the country’s first lunar exploration program said in comments published on Friday.
China, which plans to launch a lunar orbiter called ”Chang’e One” in the second half of 2007 to take 3D images, would aim to land an unmanned vehicle on its surface by 2010, official news portal Chinanews.com quoted Ouyang Ziyuan as saying.
“Currently, our country’s lunar exploration program is divided into three phases—orbiting the moon, landing on the moon and returning back to Earth,” Ouyang said.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


So skepticalfriend, you'll see all the US equipment soon.
I bet you're glad to see that !!!



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra

...
The challenge is for the private industy to develop the technology. If you'd have gone to the website you would have read that. It's similar to the X-prize. And also, if you had looked more into this challenge, you would see that there are a number of teams, some with working prototypes, which I had posted links to a number of pages ago. They work, the techonolgy is there. It's not as hard as you're making it out to be.


Sometime truth is simplest but you don't want to see it.

At this site

space.newscientist.com...

you can read


"Armadillo, based in Mesquite, Texas, US, was vying for the $350,000 first prize in the first year of the Lunar Lander Challenge, one of NASA's Centennial Challenges to spark technological advances.
The challenge is meant to develop rockets that can take off and land vertically on the Moon.
Three other teams had registered but did not have their vehicles ready in time for the competition. Carmack said he predicted there would be "at most one additional qualifier" for the competition next year".

If someone had the technology to build a rocket that can take off and land vertically on the Moon, they would have won the Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge.

I would like to talk now about a very strange thing of NASA jokers that reveals the big fraud.

If NASA jokers had been able to send men to the moon, they would have kept secret their big technology like Ferrari and McLaren F1 keep secret technology of their cars.

Instead NASA jokers have written, written, written, and have explained everything. .



Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link









[edit on 15-8-2007 by Jbird]



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 04:59 PM
link   
I can't believe I'm replying to this, but that's got to be one of the WORST comparisons I've seen in a long time. Ferrari and others are BUSINESSES. They make money by selling cars, and in the case of their racing programs by winning races. The more races they win, the more money they bring home. It HELPS them to keep their technology secret from other BUSINESSES. Who exactly is NASA competing against to make money? NO ONE! They are a government agency! They don't HAVE to compete against anyone to make money. By giving out the information they are helping to make space flight cheaper by getting businesses involved, so that some day regular citizens can go into space without paying $20+ Million per trip. And no business is going to want to get involved if they have to start from scratch and spend millions or even billions on something that has been done already.



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
...
Who exactly is NASA competing against to make money? NO ONE! They are a government agency! They don't HAVE to compete against anyone to make money.
...


Kennedy wanted to send men to the moon to show that USA were the most powerful country in the world.

NASA jokers competed against Russians during "The Cold War" not to make money but to get prestige, authority, power.

Inventing to have been able to send men to the Moon, USA conquered also military supremacy, the most important thing in those years.

Since they were not able to create the technology to go to the moon, they invented the big fraud and wrote, wrote, wrote about hundreds of systems that they would have wanted to be able to realize.

NASA jokers revealed their secret technology because it was a fake technology, to show their fake big brain they didn't have.

With their fake videos and their fake systems NASA jokers swindled all the people of our planet.

Sometimes truth is simplest.



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 12:56 AM
link   
He's back at it again this time with RARLY seen Apollo photos, and questions NASA will /has NEVER answered: www.erichufschmid.net...
Now this is scary:
www.geocities.com...

Part 2. apolloreality2.bravehost.com...
WOW after seeing those 2 parts I think there really is a New World Order coming.

[edit on 13-8-2007 by YASKY]



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 02:15 AM
link   
I bet when we start strip mining the moon for H3, and apollo artifacts are photographed for old times sake, the hoax theorists will still have some lame excuse, and a link to youtube as "evidence"



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
I bet when we start strip mining the moon for H3, and apollo artifacts are photographed for old times sake, the hoax theorists will still have some lame excuse, and a link to youtube as "evidence"

Now MoonBelievers are so desperate their starting to say YOUTUBE is unreliable just like Wikipedia
ANYWAYS in this link you'll read the author saying Nasa once again says "Radiation is to much for Human to go to moon" apollofryup.bravehost.com...
NOW here's the direct NASA link, scroll down to "Program 25" listen and weep once again NASA slipping up and letting us know Radiation is too high for humans to go out to space
video.csupomona.edu...

[edit on 13-8-2007 by YASKY]

[edit on 13-8-2007 by YASKY]

[edit on 13-8-2007 by YASKY]



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Yasky,

They have be so many times to the Moon, and nothing happened. I do no see why you are panicking? It is very unlikely that anyone will get too much radiation, since all those Apollo guys came home, from the Moon, live and well. No problem there.


Why do you think that radiation is any problem, I don't understand.

Bid deal.

I think that much bigger problem will be to bring pictures with stars in them. Just because of poeople who are sceptics...cameras are bigger problem than the radiation. Apollo mission did not dwell on such unimportant topics. They were ready to warn the astronouts if there are sun flares, and that's it. No problem there.

Yasky, you just like to make it sound complicated...




posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by swimmer
Yasky,

They have be so many times to the Moon, and nothing happened. I do no see why you are panicking? It is very unlikely that anyone will get too much radiation, since all those Apollo guys came home, from the Moon, live and well. No problem there.


Why do you think that radiation is any problem, I don't understand.

Bid deal.

I think that much bigger problem will be to bring pictures with stars in them. Just because of poeople who are sceptics...cameras are bigger problem than the radiation. Apollo mission did not dwell on such unimportant topics. They were ready to warn the astronouts if there are sun flares, and that's it. No problem there.

Yasky, you just like to make it sound complicated...


DUDE did you like not go to that link I posted above thats NASA addmiting humans can't go outside the Van Allen Belt even now 2007 go and listen to him for your self, click on "Program 25" and listen

video.csupomona.edu...

[edit on 14-8-2007 by YASKY]

[edit on 14-8-2007 by YASKY]



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by YASKY
...
Now this is scary:
www.geocities.com...
...


Yasky, these pics are very suitable to confirm my thought:










"According to Bobby Braun and other NASA officials the idea was to teach the astronauts how to land a rocket propelled LM. However NO ROCKET POWERED LM WAS EVER SUSPENDED FROM THIS CRANE. In any case anyone with the slightest gumption knows that it is IMPOSSIBLE to control a rocket engine. If the PAN's disagree, then perhaps they could direct me to a video or film showing how the feat was, or could be accomplished. The landings were controlled purely by traverse and lowering of the LM in the same way as a conventional crane".

Perhaps Bobby Braun said the truth. In 1963/64 NASA jokers thought to be able to build a rocket that could land going backwards.

Perhaps the idea was to teach the astronauts how to land a rocket propelled LM.

But NASA engineers didn't find the technology to build a rocket that could take off and land vertically.

After many failures they decided to realize the big fraud and perhaps they used that big crane to make photos.

But I think that for rockets in movement they used models. Look at this picture:



I think it's a little model, not a big fake rocket suspended from that big crane.

I like above all the enthusiasm, excitement, euphoria of THE 3 HEROES OF THE MOON:

www.youtube.com...

I LOVE SO MUCH ALDRIN'S EUPHORIA.



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 06:37 PM
link   
an article from SPACE.COM.
The information from the article can be verified from a number of different sources.

During the first moonwalk, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin set up several experiments designed to find out what the moon was made of and how old it was. The solar-powered and nuclear-heated Early Apollo Surface Experiments Package (EASEP), was the precursor of a more comprehensive set of experiments that would be carried on subsequent Apollo missions. The package consisted two main experiments: a set of seismic monitors and a sophisticated mirror that would reflect laser beams back to Earth.

The seismic recorder was comprised of a square base with an antenna and flanked by two solar panels facing east and west. The seismometers were designed to measure events such as meteorite impacts and moonquakes. Studying the seismic signature of such shakes would help scientists answer daunting questions about the moon's interior: questions such as whether the moon had a solid or molten center, and how thick was the moon's crust. Later, scientists would determine that the moon has a partially melted interior, with a mantle similar to, but thicker than, Earth's.

The seismic recorder carried the first major use of nuclear energy in a manned space-flight mission. To protect the recorder from the cold of lunar night, which can drop to minus 279 degrees Fahrenheit during 340 hours of darkness, the device used two radioactive isotopic heaters. Each harnessed the heat given off by the decay of 1.2 ounces of plutonium 238. A similar process uses plutonium to heat and power components in the Cassini probe now bound for Saturn.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Gee so how did the LRRR's get on the moon???

Keep in mind, existence of the LRRR's on the moon can be verified from earth so we KNOW they are there.



Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link

[edit on 15-8-2007 by Jbird]



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 07:42 PM
link   
At this moment 99% of scientists of the world know that there was not "Moon Landing". The fact is, probably 50% of ordinary people figured it out.

NASA will have to admit their lies in the next five years or so. Otherwise, they will compromise credibiliy of ANY NASA PROJECT - and there is a lot of money invested.

Or, maybe NASA is waiting for the next big war, when 90% of litterate population will be killed - so that they can continue their fairy tales with new world population.



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 07:53 PM
link   




I've challenged many a hoax believer to go to the Mcdonald observatory, and tell those good folks their lifes work is a hoax, but for some reason, they never do


they don't have an answer for the mirrors or rocks, they always ignore those posts, and rely on speculation as evidence.

Either private trips or the H3 strip mining will bring irrefutable evidence the Apollo artifacts are there, but the hoaxers will have some excuse. For some reason, these folks have a psychological need for the hoax to be true. Its funny, most posters here think titor is legit, but the moon landing is a hoax


I think its simply anti-establishment thinking, whatever is accepted is false.

anti conformity is still conformity


think for yourself people !



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 01:54 AM
link   




Oh yes, the famous Early Apollo Surface Experiments Package System (EASEPS).

Oh yes, nuclear-heated, the famous Plutonium Nuclear-Heated System (PNHS). The device used two radioactive isotopic heaters, the famous Radioactive Isotopic Heaters System (RIHS).

Oh, yes, the Laser Ranging Retro-Reflector System, or LRRRS.
With this incredible device scientists can measure the Earth-moon distance to an accuracy of about 1 1/4 inches (3 centimeters).

They use Accuracy Measure Earth-Moon Distance Only Three Centimeters Failure System (AMEMDOTCFS).

This is the famous longest acronym of NASA jokers.

I like above all the enthusiasm, excitement, euphoria of THE 3 HEROES OF THE MOON:

www.youtube.com...

I LOVE SO MUCH ALDRIN'S EUPHORIA.




[edit on 15-8-2007 by skepticfriend]



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 04:44 PM
link   
skepticalfriend,
Since you can't argue a fact, you resort to calling NASA astronauts jokers? That is very childish. I would like to expect that all individuals here could conduct themselves as adults. If you actually have some type of evidence to contradict the LRRR placed on the moon, I would like to see it. If you're planning on coming on here just to call NASA astronauts jokers, I would hope that you will be placed on ignore lists.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 93  94  95    97  98  99 >>

log in

join