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.

 

Nasa Apollo Moon - more anomolies

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 11:29 AM
link   
hehe... nah, don't have to be a nasa specialist to spot an amateur photographer


Anyhoo... looks to me like they scanned in the negative as a negative and in the process didn't bother to turn the picture the right way. Heck might even be the newspaper who took some liberties regarding from which angle the picture looked it's best.




posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 11:39 AM
link   
They did a very good job then..much better then NASA did....because the original is much worse in colors.

Or is there a reason the original photo is not that good ?



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by webstra
They did a very good job then..much better then NASA did....because the original is much worse in colors.

Or is there a reason the original photo is not that good ?


kk... I'll try to explain better. What you are seeing in the original photo (with the worse "colors") is an actual scan of a negative... it is actually posible to scan a negative into a computer as a negative.
A negative is in someway what the name states: negative colors.
Once the film is developed onto paper you will get the result that you're seeing in the newspaper picture. So the newspaper didn't achieve anything really... well they achieved to post the developed photo which nasa failed, but I guess that's down to lack of attention.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 12:17 PM
link   
But hey... after having played with it in PS, I gotta admit Nasa did a real #ty job even at the negative scan. I can't really invert back into color, so either they really didn't care when scanning it or they did some descent darkroom work on em afterwards.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Yeh...........I think we have the right to get an apollo-gy from the NASA people don't you ?

And because they have all the negatives...they can do a much better job.

[edit on 30-6-2007 by webstra]



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Yeah the modules do look like they were build by kids, but they had to add layers of protective sheeting and I for one cannot come up with anything better than tape to hold fragile material at an uneven surface. It's not like they can clue it on or puncture it with anything



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
and I for one cannot come up with anything better than tape to hold fragile material at an uneven surface. It's not like they can clue it on or puncture it with anything


Oh yes, lets just tape some shielding onto the command module. Thats going to be very secure as it leaves earth's atmosphere.


*Remembers all the fuss over pealed/torn off heat shielding*

Considering this is NASA we are talking about, would it be too much to expect they ordered the parts for the module to be built with shielding?

Surely they could have used magnetic attraction if they really needed to attach external disposable shields...

Look at the ISS, it doesn't look like it was built by high school kids on a budget of 50 dollars, but surely IT needs shielding?

And what happens when the masking tape is exposed to direct sunlight? All the glue would melt away.

[edit on 30-6-2007 by Yandros]

[edit on 30-6-2007 by Yandros]



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Just a question, as maybe my eyes/mind are playing tricks on me.

Compare the picture that Badgr01 linked to and the one PsycoOps linked to a few posts later. They are both taken in the are around the lander.

In the link by Badge01, there are no small impact craters to be seen anywhere, yet in the other link, there are a lot of them.

Now this isn't a smoking gun of anything. but it's odd that the ground is so different at the same site, albeit the pictures are in different directions. One would think that eons of random impacts would not leave one area so free of craters.

Just one of those things to go, Hmmmmmmmmmm??????????



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 03:02 PM
link   
I'm not sure if it's the same site, I went blindly surfing the apollo pictures and dont have a clue which one of those it was taken on



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Er...as far as I'm aware, I posted the same picture.

It may be that you're looking at the full size version to which I linked, and seeing smoother background.

I'm not sure I see what you're seeing wrt the crater formations.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yandros

Oh yes, lets just tape some shielding onto the command module. Thats going to be very secure as it leaves earth's atmosphere.


You forget that the landing module was totally contained inside the topmost stage of the Saturn V, and therefore not exposed to space at all during launch.



Surely they could have used magnetic attraction if they really needed to attach external disposable shields...


Magnets are very heavy, so no, they probably couldn't. Recall that the LEM was so light and delicately powered that it could not have flown under its own power on earth.



Look at the ISS, it doesn't look like it was built by high school kids on a budget of 50 dollars, but surely IT needs shielding?


The ISS was also built 30 years later and designed to weather the dangers of Low Earth Orbit. I would hope that some advances in shielding would have made their way into its design.



And what happens when the masking tape is exposed to direct sunlight? All the glue would melt away.


Assuming it was masking tape, which it wasn't. Not all tapes are made equally. The 'tape' holding the lander together is quite probably made of metal.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by steve-o
I still think to this day that the landing was faked , the images alone prove how fragile and homemade it seemed to appear.


If you think ours was rickety (and you're right), you should see what the Soviets were going to try to put up there:



The thing was a real horror, with barely any computerization, and most of the controls being operated hydraulically. Just a cosmonaut death waiting to happen. Fortunately, they gave up on it before somebody did get killed.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yandros
Oh yes, lets just tape some shielding onto the command module. Thats going to be very secure as it leaves earth's atmosphere.


*Remembers all the fuss over pealed/torn off heat shielding*

Considering this is NASA we are talking about, would it be too much to expect they ordered the parts for the module to be built with shielding?

Surely they could have used magnetic attraction if they really needed to attach external disposable shields...

Look at the ISS, it doesn't look like it was built by high school kids on a budget of 50 dollars, but surely IT needs shielding?

And what happens when the masking tape is exposed to direct sunlight? All the glue would melt away.

Ok your post is silly and without much knowledge or thought.

First off, the command module never touched the earths atmosphere in ascent, therefore no protection needed for those effects. It was protected inside Upper stage of the Saturn V rocket, protection being the boost protective cover, or shroud.

The protection we are talking about on the Lunar Module (LM) in the form of "blankets". These blankets are for thermal reasons, to keep certain parts warm, certain parts cold, shielding from radiation and protection from orbital debris impacts. And yes blankets are held together between themselves by stitching, and to the spacecraft and in area to other blankets, yes, with tape.

Your assertion that the glue would melt, well we're not talking about 3m scotch tape here, the tape normally used in the past 40+ years for space critical applications is called Kapton© tape. It is designed for low out-gassing and high survivability in thermal conditions. It has low shrink rate and boy is the stuff sticky.

Most of the satellites in orbit right now are covered in blankets protecting them from thermal effects. Some blankets are white, some are black, some are reflective, gold or silver. Do some research into blanketing and thermal design please. Today we still use tape in places. Tape is used as a repair stop is a tear (small ones) is discovered and to connect to areas of the spacecraft.

Velcro though is the primary method of attachment now, believe it or not. And no, the apollo program would not have designed expensive 'magnetic' means of attaching a blanket to the command module, that would be silly, when a simple 1 penny piece of tape suffices.




[edit on 6/30/2007 by greatlakes]



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by SuicideVirus
If you think ours was rickety (and you're right), you should see what the Soviets were going to try to put up there:


Good post. Here's a diagram of the lander, which was called the LK Lander:

en.wikipedia.org...



It was designed for one Cosmonaut and did fly successfully several times.

It's somewhat surprising that the Soviets didn't have a more successful lauch rocket, called the N1, because they had a better scientist in Sergey Korolev. Somehow Von Braun managed to make the Saturn V fly more reliably, or so we're told.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Badge01
It's somewhat surprising that the Soviets didn't have a more successful lauch rocket, called the N1, because they had a better scientist in Sergey Korolev. Somehow Von Braun managed to make the Saturn V fly more reliably, or so we're told.


Well, it's easy to compete against a dead man when you're designing things... Afterall, Korolev died in early -66. Though I don't know when the Saturn V plans were actually finalized. Also one must take into account the typical soviet infighting which caused delays and sub-optimal designs being accepted to production. Also the N-1 failure is a good example of showing that clustering many engines together does not scale reliably at all...



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by greatlakes
called Kapton© tape
[edit on 6/30/2007 by greatlakes]


Please tell me all about it greatlakes......how do you know about this magic ducktape ?



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by greatlakes
And no, the apollo program would not have designed expensive 'magnetic' means of attaching a blanket to the command module, that would be silly, when a simple 1 penny piece of tape suffices.
[edit on 6/30/2007 by greatlakes]


That may be the case but it remains to me an absurd notion that the craft of the space age are held together using adhesive tape.

Make any list of excuses you like, its still pretty ridiculous.

If you wanted to cheaply put shielding on something then why not build a lightweight frame to support it and staple it on? Like insulation is stabled onto the frame of a house. Makes more sense to have a consistent well thought out approach to micrometeorite protection. Anything would be better than material here, tape there.

It also begs the question: why not have the adhesive on the material itself? So they could just stick it straight onto the craft?

Well perhaps you are right. Perhaps all spacecraft are bubble wrapped with the care of a last minute birthday present before they are shipped off to perform life critical functions in hard vacuum.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 11:52 PM
link   
....why didn't i here NASA say that DUCKTAPE was a very important part of the whole APOLLO project ?


Let me tell you this NASA......i am very disapointed..................

[edit on 1-7-2007 by webstra]



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yandros
That may be the case but it remains to me an absurd notion that the craft of the space age are held together using adhesive tape.

It is the case-Ok no matter how advanced you think we are, the fact is that we do use tape, and staples, and velcro and thread on our spacecraft now and on previous missions. Is not an absurd notion as you state, its simplicity, it works, in the case of velcro, it works really well! Many time for inspections etc, the blankets may need to be peeled away during build and testing, the velcro make this as easy as can be. I don't understand, are you disputing this fact?


Originally posted by Yandros
Make any list of excuses you like, its still pretty ridiculous.

Again, uh, how is this an excuse, these are facts that I made in my prev post. What do you mean pray tell??



Originally posted by Yandros
If you wanted to cheaply put shielding on something then why not build a lightweight frame to support it and staple it on? Like insulation is stabled onto the frame of a house. Makes more sense to have a consistent well thought out approach to micrometeorite protection. Anything would be better than material here, tape there.

Do you just make postings off the top of your head, without so much as even a google search? In some case there are frames that are made to encompass certain areas or instruments. In cases where a flappy blanket may NOT be a good idea, such as ending up in front of a camera or other instrument on a spacecraft.

In those cases, yes a frame is built, this frame is then covered with GUESS WHAT a blanket. Permanent solutions such as your "staple here there" are not a feasible or cost effective method of thermal protection. As I said, the blankets need to be periodically peeled back to reveal for testing, build etc, velcro and tape are OUR FRIENDS in this case.

BTW, these blanket designs ARE WELL THOUGHT OUT, they are designed to be used in that way, thermal analysis also tells what blanket type, thickness, layers of and fastening type, along with what surface color to be used in any particular area. Also, these are fairly expensive blanket materials being used, The term is multi-layer insulation or blanketing MLI, consists of mylar film layers intermixed with a variety of other sub layers, Carbon black outer provides the outer black layer for those blankets that need to be dark, in order to keep the area WARM instead of cold.

To keep an area cold, WHITE is used, or in the extreme case reflective, gold or silver is used.


Originally posted by Yandros
It also begs the question: why not have the adhesive on the material itself? So they could just stick it straight onto the craft?

Why redesign the wheel if it rolls, and is already done, designed and made? I'm not getting you or what your saying (isnt that a song..?)


Originally posted by Yandros
Well perhaps you are right. Perhaps all spacecraft are bubble wrapped with the care of a last minute birthday present before they are shipped off to perform life critical functions in hard vacuum.

LOL
Do you think I'm making this up??!! Before spouting off with ignorant postings, don't trust me, do some of your own research in the matter.

Also, what does hard vacuum have to do with the issue we're talking about?
I think you're confused. The vacuum of space is taken into account by the structure of the spacecraft, not by the thermal and micrometeoroid protection. Maybe thats where you are being led askew, thinking the blankets keep the internal atmosphere for the astronauts,and thus how does tape perform this function...? I dunno, I hope thats not what you're thinking. Again the structure of the craft provides the positive pressure and internal breathing atmosphere for the astronauts.


[edit on 7/1/2007 by greatlakes]



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 12:38 AM
link   
Um did anyone else notice on the bottom right "foot" of the lander the reflection of a humanoid and possibly his ship behind him??? zoom in....
its the leg closer to the space junk he pointed out?? I am going to find out how to post pics up here so you can see if you need help finding it....




top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join