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.
Originally posted by Nemithesis
And the official NASA version... www.hq.nasa.gov...
While on this slight tangent to the OP, I can't help but note the radius of the horizon in that photo. It sure doesn't seem even possible when in comparison with pretty much any other Apollo moon photo ever taken.
Originally posted by Damoclesfind me that quote and ill believe we never went to the moon. until then you have 'evidence' and a well thoguht out theory, but it still fails to meet the burden of "proof".
TJ
Originally posted by Nemithesis
They didn't worry much about static discharges on the Apollo missions because they didn't really worry much about static electricity at all in the late 1960's early 1970's.
The electronic components at that time weren't very susceptible to damage from static electricity, and the ones that were were heavily shielded in lead cases on any space destined vehicles.
Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
O.k. — if back in the Apollo days the triboelectric charge was not measured because as you say “there was no reason to measure it” — then why not “play it safe” and go back to the moon with the exact same shock and static proof equipment used back then?
Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Hey, there’s no need for NASA to take unnecessary chances. Let's fire up the Saturn 5. What are we waiting for!
Originally posted by golemina
Show us the flatest Earth logic of all...
>In fact it would have been the biggest coup of the cold war!
When the fortune teller sees the soothsayer... they wink at each other!
quote: Originally posted by Nemithesis
They didn't worry much about static discharges on the Apollo missions because they didn't really worry much about static electricity at all in the late 1960's early 1970's. The electronic components at that time weren't very susceptible to damage from static electricity, and the ones that were were heavily shielded in lead cases on any space destined vehicles.
Bingo! Today’s electronics are much more susceptible to ESD than they were back then and it was not a concern.
quote: Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
O.k. — if back in the Apollo days the triboelectric charge was not measured because as you say “there was no reason to measure it” — then why not “play it safe” and go back to the moon with the exact same shock and static proof equipment used back then?
Because today’s electronics do a lot more and more scientific data can be collected.
quote: Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Hey, there’s no need for NASA to take unnecessary chances. Let's fire up the Saturn 5. What are we waiting for!
Can’t do that. All the molds and tooling for the Saturn engines were destroyed by order of some congressman after Apollo was cancelled so they would not be tempted to do just that. For the next mission the heavy lifting rocket technology will have to be remade. I have heard that even if they worked off the old blueprints of the Saturn rockets, there is not much improvement that would be needed. Those Von Braun motors were awesome.
Originally posted by SAGEX89
So then why not to go back to using the same material as before? It must have been cheaper, right? Or why not try using something different? But if they havent used anything, then they wouldnt know right?
Originally posted by SAGEX89
So why havent they measured it recently? Or since then?
Originally posted by SAGEX89
Im pretty sure theyve noticed some static when being on the moon ONCE. You know its funny how people watching the TV can notice a coke bottle on the moon settings, and get a theory from that. But when you in a whole new atmosphere, you cant simply wonder..."Did you just shock me? Well where the hell did that come from?" It had to have happened once...
Originally posted by SAGEX89
Destroyed?? BY A CONGRESSMAN? of course..just like the rest of the stuff that was found on the moon..or supposedly..dont u think that if they still had some of those tools, people questioning that mission would investigate it themselves? Yes..they would..therefore..you destroy the evidence..
Another issue is the tooling for the vehicles. Documents and blueprints are not the only things necessary for building a rocket. They also require tools, many of which are built exclusively for assembling the vehicle and many of which are large, such as jigs that can hold ten-meter-diameter fuel tanks. Those tools also have to be designed. When the contract is over, the tools take up space that can be devoted to other tasks. So the tools are either put into storage and later scrapped, or simply scrapped immediately. The tooling for the Saturn 5 was destroyed over three decades ago.
www.thespacereview.com...
Originally posted by SAGEX89
Why talk about could be? We havent landed on Mars, so why put it on the same basis as the moon? "We could" "We should" As in HAVENT, BUT MAYBE. Do you really think we could fly to the moon before cell phones were invented? Seems unlikely
Originally posted by dgtempe
The problem is that the astronauts are sworn to secrecy and some of them have already said too much. They probably want to live, so, they must just fade away and keep their mouths shut.
They saw plenty while out in the moon, in fact, not only did they see many ET ships, the way i hear it, they were also told to stay off the moon. (word has it), so they have to be careful not to rattle the governments.