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.

 

Why didn't the USSR fake a moon landing?

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by sir_chancealot
 


www.msnbc.msn.com...
What you've opened up is a politically tinged issue that not everyone will agree on. From my point of view, the world knew he had the raw materials necessary for at least a dirty bomb.

In short, the world didn't "out" us because there was nothing to "out." If you want to suggest that a dirty bomb doesn't count as dangerous, I'm not going to argue with you because it's off-topic, but know that the rest of the world had their hand in the oil for food scandal and had every reason for wanting us to leave iraq alone, and indeed they tried to stop the invasion.

[edit on 27-3-2009 by ngchunter]




posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Gun Totin Gerbil
 


I have got to see that coke can when I get time A link when possible?



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 

Thanks I'll check the link.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Gun Totin Gerbil
 


Nope.....just another viral video 'internet' urban legend. (the 'coke' can...)

Probably an advert for Coca-Cola...like the one that spread for a while showing a cow being abducted by a UFO...marketing.

Answer for the OP: Because it could not have been faked (but I think that was kinda sorta the point of the title in the first place).



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Hi guys (newbie, first post).

Some woman caller to Coast this week (can't remember which show) gave the answer to your question. She said when three Russian scientists were asked the same question, they responded that the answer was simple...

'Russia never had Hollywood to help them as America did.'

As an aside, I have no difficulty in believing the landings - just the photographs. I think NASA realised the problems they'd have relaying live decent colour images back to earth (bandwidth was really narrow back then
) and the risks involved bringing film back through the Van Allen radiation belt. Also, I think they realised if anything happened to the mission on the return journey then mankind would have no decent record of its achievements for posterity. Add up all those factors (and probably lots more) and you can see why they went for the belt and braces approach.

Those fabulous images we see of astronauts on the moon are very likely to be staged and professionally shot - not because we didn't go there, but because they wanted to make sure there's some quality images for the press and for future generations to wonder at. Those were monumental events and they deserve the result - even at a price.

And for that reason, I don't mind. We have the TV footage, we have the audio and video from the orbiter. We have enough 'genuine' historic material.

So think of the photographs as 'special editions', like the digitally re-mastered versions of Snow White or Pinocchio and appreciate them for what they represent, even if you can't appreciate them for what they pretend to be.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by C2CBuddyAs an aside, I have no difficulty in believing the landings - just the photographs. I think NASA realised the problems they'd have relaying live decent colour images back to earth (bandwidth was really narrow back then
)

They didn't? Apollo 11 only relayed back black and white images from the lunar surface, and by today's standards, even the infamous pre-conversion black and white images were not at TV levels of "decent."


and the risks involved bringing film back through the Van Allen radiation belt.

If that was a risk, why did they have no problem passing film through the van allen radiation belt the first few times; namely, during the lunar orbiter program?
www.lpi.usra.edu...
They sent unmanned probes with film, which was automatically developed onboard, scanned, then transmitted back to earth. The van allen belts were far too weak to fog the film.


Also, I think they realised if anything happened to the mission on the return journey then mankind would have no decent record of its achievements for posterity.

Putting the cart before the horse if you ask me, you need to prove that the photos were staged, not that there was a motive to do so. That aside, you reminded me just now of one of the best proofs that we did go (I know you're not explicitly arguing we didn't, but it applies) - one of Nixon's advisors had a speech prepared ahead of time just in case the apollo 11 astronauts were unable to lift off of the lunar surface, either because of a rough landing at a bad angle, or the engine simply didn't light. The memo didn't surface until ten years ago.
www.thesmokinggun.com...
Why go to the trouble of writing it if it was staged, and then not even intentionally leak it? The fact is, they were prepared to accept grainy black and white images as the only lasting memory of Apollo should something go wrong. Not desireable, but it was an acceptable risk.

[edit on 27-3-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by sir_chancealot
 


The whole debate about moon landings wil be resolved soon. the camera with a resolution of 1 meter will be abled to see the landing sites quite well.

The spacecraft will be placed in low polar orbit (50 km) for a 1-year mission under NASA's Exploration Systems Mission Directorate. LRO will return global data, such as day-night temperature maps, a global geodetic grid, high resolution color imaging and the moon's UV albedo.

Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera
The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera (LROC) will retrieve high resolution black and white images of the lunar surface, capturing images of the lunar poles with resolutions down to 1m, and will image the lunar surface in color and ultraviolet. These images will provide knowledge of polar illumination conditions, identify potential resources & hazards, and enable safe landing site selection.

Now the only problem is what will all those people do with all the spare time they spent trying to prove we didnt go to the moon.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Do you know if the Japanese SELENE or the European ESMART orbiters had the same,worse or better capability? A bunch of folks claimed they did.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


Smart-1 pixel resolution 80m:
en.wikipedia.org...
Selene pixel resolution 10m:
en.wikipedia.org...

Neither one are good enough to resolve the lunar lander's base, though Selene did detect dust disturbances at the landing sites.
www.kaguya.jaxa.jp...
vs Before and after from apollo 15 itself:
rst.gsfc.nasa.gov...



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


On the egress and redock of the LM.
Way different than all the orbital practice and whatnot.
For clarity. Let me say this----
There would be no way to practice landing a LM on the moon than the act of doing it. Apollo 11 was the practice. It was also the practice run for the redocking to the CM. Again first time = practice.
There must be some risk assement numbers for this.
If you know them please let us know. Also we need to know exactly how the LM lifted off, got up enough speed to over take the CM and dock.
I do not want bust anyones chops. These are some of the reasons that point me in the direction a hoaxer travels.
BTW it is very much appreciated. The involvement by all.
If I new how and had time I would have flags and stars and MOONS for you all.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 

SELENE SMART LRO
Don't get me wrong but can you see why there are always doubts.
See my post to Slingblabe there is thanks in it.
Not that anything you could see would prove much.
Even if there was something like a person down there waveing back up. It could be a robot. They have had 40 years to accomplish a simple task like that.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


On the egress and redock of the LM.
Way different than all the orbital practice and whatnot.

How so? Apollo 10 was just a few thousand feet over the lunar surface before they started to climb back to the command module using the ascent module (following what was essentially the same as the abort proceedure). How is that any different in practice?


Also we need to know exactly how the LM lifted off, got up enough speed to over take the CM and dock.

nassp.sourceforge.net...
Install the above and its required software. Alternatively, if you want a simplified version (apollo for dummies - don't take that the wrong way):
www.orbiterwiki.org...
Either one will teach you the concepts of how the LM lifted off from the moon and rendezvoused with the command module (the former is more accurate in that it actually runs the actual apollo guidance computer software and emulates the hardware - the latter simulates the performance of the spacecraft but not the complicated hardware). In principle it's no different than the shuttle rendezvousing with the space station. The most critical aspects are timing and heading. Liftoff at the right moment and point in the right direction. The rest is easily accomplished. If you can reach orbital speed you can easily overtake any other object in orbit (or let it overtake you). Why? Because the lower your orbit, the faster you are. If you "step on the gas" you'll end up going slower. It's basic orbital mechanics and it's very counter-intuitive.

[edit on 27-3-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
SELENE SMART LRO
Don't get me wrong but can you see why there are always doubts.

I'm not sure I do. Why do you suspect that they're lying about the capabilities of Selene and Smart-1?

Not that anything you could see would prove much.
Even if there was something like a person down there waveing back up. It could be a robot. They have had 40 years to accomplish a simple task like that.

I don't think there's much simple about doing something like that without being noticed, but I guess it goes to show that if you really don't want to believe apollo happened, nothing will ever convince you.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


At the risk of seeming off-topic....NASA had the best simulators money could buy. Really, just a bunch of zeroes and ones that the engineers program in, just like today.
(except the computers then were the size of a house...)

Modern airline simulators are so good, that after completing the proper airline syllabus, and without even ever touching the airplane you are transitioning to during the training, your first actual flight on the new airplane is conducted 'live'....on an actual revenue flight. WITH passengers....oh, and.....also, a qualified 'Check Airman', as designated per the Airline's Ops Specs, and blessed by the FAA.

I daresay Astronauts spend months and months.....while an airline pilot can switch from the B-737 to learn the B-757 in as little as six weeks.

Of course, the Astronauts were also test pilots.....the ENTIRE Space Program was one big test program, if you think about it. They HAD to know every friggin' bolt and nut.....and, they did, with lots of ground support as well.......


jra

posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by C2CBuddy
'Russia never had Hollywood to help them as America did.'


You don't need Hollywood to make a good looking movie. Take a look at the movie Road to the Stars made by Pavel Klushantsev in 1954. While the design of some of the space ships might look a bit silly, the special effects themselves seem pretty impressive for that time.

But I don't think any movie studio, be it Hollywood or whoever, could make a convincing hoax with the technology of that time. As much as I love the movie 2001, it's full of errors and mistakes.


Those fabulous images we see of astronauts on the moon are very likely to be staged and professionally shot


That would be to be one big studio, especially for Apollo's 15 - 17 since they traversed several km worth of the Lunar surface. Plus one would have to match up the photos and Data Acquisition Camera (which used film) footage with the live video, so that it's all consistent. It would be easier just to do it all on the Moon.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Sling Blade, I truly love you. Talk to ya in the mornin.
The moon and alfa sentori might be well conjuncted.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by jra
 


It is good to see you are still with the entire conspiricy.
Like I contend that it is a far feched premis that a human walked or stepped foot on the lunar suface . How would you respond to an inquiry that you and Phage are the same poster?
Phage could be on the moon getting some rocks or something important
but why can't he use his SSB to check in on his post?
Should we alert NASA ----(911)



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by fixer1967
 


Brutal, but for some reason I like it.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


Way cool info. on the orbital mechanics. Thank you too Weedwacker.
I think we are drifting a little of topic (Russians ) and I got busted just a little while ago.
I tried to entice the author back but haven't seen anything from him.
I hope I haven't offended anyone with my sarcastic attempt at humor.
There is a lot of passion in this topic.
I hope to see you all on other threads.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   
I think another question that should be asked is if the lunar landings were faked..


Why fake 17+ missions?



[edit on 28-3-2009 by Chadwickus]



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join