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.

 

Another Piece of Proof Why We Never Made It To The Moon!

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:
jra

posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 09:54 PM
link   

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.


That's a mountain in the background, not the horizon. The camera is low and pointing upwards so that they can get Earth in the shot.

Look at these and notice the large mountain.
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...




posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 05:23 AM
link   
it wasnt until the late 90's early 00's taht nasa finally decided that teh 486 processors were ok to use in sattelites. why? becuase it took time to test them and they are rock solid for their use. static is an issue to modern IC chips becuase of the tiny archetecture. a static shock that a pentium 166 would have laughed at will kill a modern dual core processor with a 65nm build.

why didnt they measure the static in the 60's? becuase they didnt care. it probably never occurred to them to check it.

just my .02

but as an afterthought, id rather have seen the title of this thread say another piece of evidence rather than proof...as ive yet to have any of this proved to me personally. just another couple pennies for ya to ponder on


ps, sorry for my atrocious spelling..im very tired lol



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 05:23 AM
link   
WIZARD :

your " proof " is laughable , sorry -

firstly when spending thes of millions on a critical project , it pays to have a " risk averse " policy .

you will note that the origional article cites the behaviour of a simulated environment here on earth .

having identified a potential static discharge pronlem - it would be foolish to ignore it - as the cost of jepardising the entire mision

as :

if static discharge threats are ignored - yet occur in missions - there is a high likley hood that the entire mission will fail catastropically

however :

if static discharge threats are taken seriously - yet fail to materialise , then the vehicle costs will be slightly higer , the development times slightly longer , and the payload slightly smaller .

but the mission will soceed [ or rather it will not be thrreatened by static discharges ] - and also robust electronics capable of ersisting static threats will have better redundancy , g-force tollerance , viibration tollerence thermal tolerance etc etc

so tell me - wjhat would you do , build in static discharge protection that may be an unwanted cost over run and dead weight

or ignore the threat , pray it never happens - and look fooking stooopid when an arc shorts out your 100million mars mission leaving the entire system a somoking wreck on the plain ??????

huh - has " risk aversion " sunk in yet ?

next you have made the baffling leap of logic that this simulation of martian conditions , conducted on will automatically apply to the moon

as JRA correctly pointed out , you dishonestly deleted a key caveat about the suspected dangers of earth moving operations on the moon / mars

re read it as evidence of nasa`s risk aversion planning , which is what it is .

and not your fantasy " admission of guilt " .

and it all makes sense



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 07:28 AM
link   
Interesting thoughts. I don't think you can use quotes to substantiate your claims at all though; it just isn't reliable and you are sloping his words when he probably didn't even mean to say them that way. Cleverly changing them around or getting different meanings from him isn't proving the fact that we didn't go to the moon, it's proving that he had errors in his quotes.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Dear Damocles, ignorant_ape and Ominiscient:

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury — in any court of law is this here Republic we call the United States of America, an admission of guilt is considered proof even without physical evidence to back up the claim, unless we have reason to believe the entity making the statement is “mentally unfit.

So, that being said, I’m not twisting anyone’s words here.

NASA titles its article with:
“Astronauts on the Moon and Mars are going to have to cope with an uncommon amount of static electricity.”

My comment: They mention Moon and Mars in the same breath. They refer to both places in the same way, and we all know we haven’t sent Astronauts to Mars yet.

NASA: But to astronauts on the Moon or on Mars, static discharge could be real trouble.
My comment: Why “could be”? Why not WILL be?

NASA: On Mars, we think the soil is so dry and insulating that if an astronaut were out walking, once he or she returned to the habitat and reached out to open the airlock, a little lightning bolt might zap critical electronics,"

My comment: Sounds harmless. However directly next to this statement NASA has posted an image of a habitat located ON THE MOON and not on Mars. They provide a link to this picture by saying “Beware the door knob.” Again, why would they post a picture of a lunar station if they didn’t think the static discharge concern applied to both, Mars and the Moon.

NASA: On the Moon and on Mars, conditions are ideal for triboelectric charging. Because the soil is insulating, providing no path to ground, a space suit or rover can build up tremendous triboelectric charge, whose magnitude is yet unknown. And when the astronaut or vehicle gets back to base and touches metal--ZAP! The lights in the base may go out, or worse.

My comment: NASA was state-of-the-art in the 1960’s. Our entire computer industry was able to evolve thanks to our space program. Yes, that’s right. The giant cash infusions of space research into our high-tech business sector enabled the emergence of all kinds of products by inducing innovation and economies of scale. Kids wouldn’t be chit-chatting on cell phones these days if it wasn’t for the space missions. My point is, if we indeed had made it to the Moon, it wouldn’t have been with vacuum-tube-laden electric devices. Whatever NASA used back then was plenty sensitive to static electricity. Launching Saturn 5’s was no picnic. Therefore, if NASA is worried “the lights on the base may go out, or worse” then that same concern would have applied back in 1969.

And, finally, NASA ends its piece with: Research is still preliminary. So ideas differ amongst the physicists who are seeking, well, some common ground.

My comment: I don’t think I’m reading too much into their ending sentence if I view this as an admission that we are about to go where no man has gone before.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 12/14/2006 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 09:19 AM
link   
And this looks like a good place to wrap up this thread... right back were it started!

At least there is a very slim chance that any future missions to the moon or mars will be faked. a) there isn't really a reason to fake a mission now. b) there are too many eyes, camera phones and telescopes today to pull something like that off.
So I guess we will see what happens when the next man walks on the moon and compare it to the first time back in 1969 and see if there are any major differences.

I, for one, look forward to that!



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 09:56 AM
link   
the basis of your argument, and im going to summarize as long as thats ok, if i misinterpret what you mean feel free to correct me as im going for accuracy here:

your presumption is essentially "if it could be a problem now, why wasnt it in the 60's if we were actually there?"

if thats correct read on, if not, then the rest of my post is way off and ill need to restate anything i am about to say based on better info.

well the contention you hold that our technology is all evolved from the 60's era space program is dead on, but the key point is that it HAS evolved. modern IC chips and components are MUCH more sensitive to static than they were then because they are smaller and not as resillient.

also, as i posted before, since static was NOT a problem for early era electronics (as much of a problem anyway) they simply didnt bother to monitor it. if they didnt forsee an issue why would they have even considered having someone watch for an arc or hook volt meters up to anything to monitor electrical surges in thier components?

IMHO the bottom line for this whole thing is that you are in fact taking this mans statements out of context as an admission that there has never been a moon landing and i personally dont feel that its fair to do so. if you want an admission then you'll just have to wait for them to come straight out and say "ya know, we were all kind of naieve in the 60's and most of nasa was smoking a LOT of pot so to scare the russians and to justify funnelling nasas budget into skunk works, we faked the landings. sorry for the misunderstanding but thats that. but hey, this time we're going for real."

find 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".

thank you

TJ



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 10:08 AM
link   
The so called reflectors were evaluated in the granddaddy of all Moon Hoax threads (towards the end
).

The results pretty much raised more questions than it answered... (Functioning reflectors would, for me, have been human artifacts on the Moon
).

After scratching away all of the nonsense marketing glossy quotes, artists concepts, pictures of a reflecting array and amateur hour web sites, it came down to the strength of the return pulses from the ranging tests...

The data fell into the following category...



The really curious part was that stalwarts of the pro-NASAs try to give the impression that the range finding system were in use from day one...

The web sites for the range finding published efforts put it in the slightly recent past.

It just fuels the fires...

Much like a slip up in using tenses.


DCP

posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 10:33 AM
link   
This all sounds like two things to me:

1) The difference between visiting a place and moving there. Longer the stay the more problems come out.

2) The biggest thing this sounds like is job security. This person at NASA needs to be published to keep his job and to move up and make more $$$$. This person takes a sound theory and writes a paper on it. Now NASA and this indivisual just got how many hits becasue of this/us?? Makes them both look more popular and the cycle continues



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 10:35 AM
link   

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


Dear Damocles:

Your username strikes fear in my heart every time I type it. But don’t get me wrong, it’s a great handle, however scary.

The odds of NASA making an official confession are about as slim as getting O.J. to say he dun’ it! Much of the public already thinks space exploration is a waste of money — given all the problems we have here on earth. They of course fail to see all the squanders they themselves as citizens and our private sector businesses are generating. We are one big giant throw-away society. Go to any restaurant and observe how people throw platefuls of food away — rich and poor persons alike. I don’t understand – if you’re not hungry, why go out to eat?

O. k. back to your concerns. If I told you I’ve been to Timbuktu six times you’d probably believe me. Would you still believe me if I told you I had no idea what the weather is like there? If I couldn’t say whether the place was hot or cold?

NASA claims they landed on the moon with six missions. Yet they say they “a space suit or rover can build up tremendous triboelectric charge, whose magnitude is yet unknown”. Yes NASA also mentions ”On the Moon, Apollo astronauts never reported being zapped by electrostatic discharges". But more importantly they also admit “wheels gather electrons as they rub through the gravel and dust”. Which is why that last statement is the “pièce de resistance” of this discussion. Because if the dinky little Mars Pathfinder accumulated electrons while crawling 80 FEET per hour — then for sure the giant Moon Buggy racing at 10 MILES per hour -- doing donuts -- would have “built up some static”, don’t you think?

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods]

[edit on 12/14/2006 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 11:00 AM
link   
I may have missed it in this series, but has anyone attempted to contact NASA, and see what they have to say? Could be that, instead of us all waffling around, and arguing (which we seem to like to do, anyway
) ... There is the possibility that the whole mystery could be cleared up. Probably not ... But it could be!!!!



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 11:14 AM
link   
This PDF document from the NASA Archives might shed some light on this discussion.



STATIC ELECTRICITY IN THE APOLLO SPACECRAFT

Abstract:

Static electricity ignition hazards in the Apollo spacecraft were studied. Sparks with energies up to 2 millijoules can be generated by a space-suited man. This amount is sufficient to ignite flammable gas vapors and mists, but is not sufficient to ignite flammable solids such as logbook paper and cotton cloth present in the Apollo spacecraft. Biomedical sensors were used to ground the space-suited man to the spacecraft and eliminate static electricity ignition hazards. Temporary interference with cardiac readings from the biomedical sensors occurred during static charge drainage. This interference was minimized by adding a 0. 1- to
1-megohm resistor in parallel to the ground circuit. Insulating fabrics used for the couch covers became electrified during use. The electrostatic charge on the couch covers was minimized by installing a grounded metal screen underneath the couch cover fabric. Storage lockers on the spacecraft floor and lithium hydroxide canisters stowedin the storage lockers were capable of accumulating several millijoules of electric energy before they were grounded to the spacecraft structure. No evidence existed of static electricity interference with the operation of the communications system of the portable life support system.


ntrs.nasa.gov...



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 11:55 AM
link   
I haven’t read the whole thread yet so forgive me if this has been repeated.


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.


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.


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.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 12:30 PM
link   
I was around in 1969 and I don't remember any Astronauts going into hiding. In fact they were like rock stars!

The point was made that we were in fact in a space race with the Russians. If they even had the slightest idea that it was faked they would have exposed it. In fact it would have been the biggest coup of the cold war!

Next will come the flat earth thread! Oh wait; it's hollow, that’s right...



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 12:50 PM
link   
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!




posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   

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!



Don't tell me! It's the ol' they were working together and perpetuating an allusion of the cold war, right?



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 01:58 PM
link   

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.


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?



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.


So why havent they measured it recently? Or since then? 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...



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.


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..

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



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 02:28 PM
link   
I take it this is addressed to me.


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?

Ever hear of a thing called progress? Today's electronics can do a million more things and are a million times smaller that the electronics from the 60's. That is what makes them more susceptible. The smaller they get the closer the pieces parts are, therefore it takes less voltage to short across nodes and destroy the components. So now we use modern electronics but we just have to worry about ESD.


Originally posted by SAGEX89
So why havent they measured it recently? Or since then?

Because they are just now starting a new program that includes going to the moon and mars.


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...

Maybe they did but it did not cause any problems so was not a big deal. Now it would be.


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..

Calm down dude. It was because we beat the Russians and many felt that the cost was too high to continue the program, which some still feel that way. I tried to find a link, but only found some that say the tooling was destroyed but not by who. I think I read about this in the book Space, but I am not going to bother to look it up. I think this explains it well enough. It also shows how the F1 rocket engine was still being considered for the new program.


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

Believe what you want. I am just trying to explain the electronics stuff because I am an electronic engineer and know a thing or two about it. I'm not going to argue about it with you.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 02:29 PM
link   

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.


Ah yes There You Go!!

Bang on there, mate.

Yes we went to the Moon
Yes there were photos faked
There is a full mining operation up there that has been there for years...

Now I like NASA for the most part... like it or not when it comes to space exploration they are the "best game in town" at the moment...

Now they are in a bad spot really... they discovered what was really going on up there... made a deal... and then had to make up stories to appease the people...

Now lets not be harsh and say they lie... but rather don't reveal all of the truth... because its in your best interest not to know too much...


But I think in the next few years it will be revealed. Many reasons for this but it has already begun. Personally I think its a rush to put stuff in place before others find out... time will tell over the next couple years...

As to the electrical charges... NASA knows all about that...

STS75 Tether Incident... this video in a poor clipped version has long been used to show UFO's swarming the broken tether... Everyone ignores just what the tether is, what it was supposed to do and just what happened...

Its covered up in the press releases... the video is pulled every time someone posts it on Youtube... but with research you can find the documents in public domain with the report after the fact. (google "electrodynamic tether"] The interesting thing is that the tether continues to gather energy even after it broke away.

Basically the tether is a 12 mile long wire that you drag through the Earth's magnetic field to generate free plasma energy... only thing was they miscalculated just how much it would produce [seems they are good at that, miscalculating]

Here is the link to the film You need to get this before it is pulled again. Save it to your drive...the poster keeps putting it back up but You tube takes it down when they find it..
Here is the Tether Full Footgage

You can order a 380 page report from NASA [its not online that I have found] This image is plasma Arc damage to an antenna array on an ESA satellite

So publicly NASA calls it a success... but lost a 100 million satellite after minutes of deploying it. Seems they forgot a circuit breaker IN CASE the power was higher than expected



And for over 10 years they have hidden the fact that there really are great high resolution pictures of the moon floating around...



Don't get out your telescopes... this is on the Farside of the Moon

So as I said they don't lie... they just don't tell you the whole truth and nothing but the truth



[edit on 14-12-2006 by zorgon]



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 02:58 PM
link   
>'Don't tell me! It's the ol' they were working together and perpetuating an allusion of the cold war, right?'

You're pretty far out there... Is it ANY wonder no one takes the pro-NASA dogmatics seriously...

AND you'll need to explain yourself back onto some type of terra ferma (read: something somewhat approaching reality.
)



Frightening when you consider the original context of the thread authors somewhat straightforward contention.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join