The Big NASA-Military Cover-up On Gravity And Atmosphere On The Moon!

page: 25
114
<< 22  23  24    26 >>

log in

join
jra

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
If the tires had that metal mesh over a rubber tube, was the rubber tube much smaller than the metal tube?

I ask this because I cannot see anything like a rubber tube on the photos of the rovers, and we can see through the metal tube.


I've never heard of a small inflated rubber tube being on the wheels either and I don't see it mentioned anywhere else.


Originally posted by mikesingh
Strange but true. We'll never know as all blue prints and manuals have been destroyed! Why? Smells of a conspiracy, what?


Firstly a lot of the blueprints exist on microfilm at various places like the Marshall Space Flight Center. Secondly, blueprints alone don't tell you how to put it all together. Most aerospace companies don't hold on to every bit of paper or specialized tooling for every project they work on (you'd run out of space pretty quickly). I doubt Grumman (now merged with Northrop) could make a brand new F-14 from scratch. Does this mean there is some kind of conspiracy regarding that plane too? Or any other plane that hasn't been in production for a while?




posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra
Firstly a lot of the blueprints exist on microfilm at various places like the Marshall Space Flight Center.


Spot on!
According to Paul Shawcross from NASA's Office of Inspector General, the blueprints for the Saturn V are held at the Marshall Space Flight Center on microfilm. Why not the Lunar Landers on microfilm too? But these are missing!




Secondly, blueprints alone don't tell you how to put it all together. I doubt Grumman (now merged with Northrop) could make a brand new F-14 from scratch. Does this mean there is some kind of conspiracy regarding that plane too? Or any other plane that hasn't been in production for a while?


Are you comparing an F-14 to the Lunar Lander that was part of the greatest achievement of mankind of landing on the Moon and flitting about on the surface on a buggy?


Most aerospace companies don't hold on to every bit of paper or specialized tooling for every project they work on (you'd run out of space pretty quickly).


Yes, they do! On microfilm earlier and now on discs! And microfilm doesn't occupy much space and therefore your contention that they'd run out of space doesn't hold much water!


Cheers!


jra

posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh
Spot on!
According to Paul Shawcross from NASA's Office of Inspector General, the blueprints for the Saturn V are held at the Marshall Space Flight Center on microfilm. Why not the Lunar Landers on microfilm too? But these are missing!


Have you checked? Or has some else checked and said so? Just because it's not on the website, doesn't mean they're not there.


Are you comparing an F-14 to the Lunar Lander that was part of the greatest achievement of mankind of landing on the Moon and flitting about on the surface on a buggy?


No. What I was saying was that Grumman likely didn't archive all the documentation and specialized tooling for the F-14. It's not uncommon for aerospace companies to get rid of all that stuff when they're done and moving on to there next project.


Yes, they do! On microfilm earlier and now on discs! And microfilm doesn't occupy much space and therefore your contention that they'd run out of space doesn't hold much water!


NASA holding onto the stuff is one thing. Grumman (who designed and built the LM) probably didn't keep much themselves. I'm sure there's also private collectors who have some documentation as well. But there's no reason for Grumman to hang onto any of it, if they're not going to build it anymore.



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 07:04 AM
link   
This guy may know something about it, or maybe he knows someone that does, as we can see on his site there were many people working on the LM.



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


OK, I've written to him. Let's wait and see!

Cheers!



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


Mike, do not get me wrong.
I am not out to get you.
BUT you and your mutual admiration club, bombard and clutter your thread with so much needless info that it seems way conspiratorial itself.
Just look at the points sported by the NASA regurgitation crew.
You do realize that every time you spew those links throughout the posts somebody is making some real easy cash!

I see you speaking with a forked tongue on this thread.
Much like a Indian Affairs dude.
Or a US presidential press secretary.

On one side of your tongue, you say NASA actually landed a Man on the moon.
While simultaneous saying that they go to, elaborate and even more incomprehensible lies and motives to scam the world in order to acquire some moon dust.

If you know what they are mining, how much they are mining?
What is the value of that stuff ?
Who is buying it?.
And what they are doing with it? And how they are getting it all through customs? How are they keeping it out of the hands of criminals and children etc. Pray tell.

I have to stop now, otherwise I will give you the opportunity to answer
with a blanket of wet newspapers and NASA propaganda.

I hope that all that venture here can understand this.

You will answer quickly if you have thoughts of your own.
It will take longer if you need to kibitz with your cronies for rebuttal.
I hope you do not disappear around to the dark side of the lunar surface as most of the regurge crew does.



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
ngchunter---- Did you ever hear of re-orders?

Goodyear had no reason whatsoever to expect a re-order for a part that belonged exclusively to a cancelled government project.


Maybe they knew NASA didn't really use them on the moon and never would.

Talk about cart before the horse... They sold as many as they could, when Apollo stopped there was no more demand, plain and simple.



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 




Sweet! I like an answer like that.
It is encouraging.
It demonstrates exactly what I am saying in my last post.
Thanks,
I think I will try to find one of those thumbs up thingies for you.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


"And this is a conspiracy site, right? I thought you knew? "

Mike, sorry. Look, my bad for jumping on you.
A little explanation if you don't mind.

I got a reply to a thread I recently posted and it made me
take a breath and do a little humble thinking.
It was the first post I have read since my arrival here at ATS
that addressed a bit of olive branching.
Having to work hard to develop some credibility in this arena,
can boost your psi to the limit it seems.
The idea that there is so much good gray matter
microwaveing through these threads.
And that it would be a neat thing if it could be turned in
a direction of change, from the status quo.

A common voice, could perhaps accomplish this.
Something for our children to be proud of and aspire to.
I think that is really what I see already from all the members
no matter which views they champion.
And you are right. This is a conspiracy site



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by mikesingh
 

Mike, do not get me wrong. I am not out to get you.

Catch me if you can!!
Ok just jokin'!



I see you speaking with a forked tongue on this thread.
Much like a Indian Affairs dude. Or a US presidential press secretary.

Hmmm...Do they have forked tongues?? Like running with the hare and hunting with the hounds? Lol!



On one side of your tongue, you say NASA actually landed a Man on the moon. While simultaneous saying that they go to, elaborate and even more incomprehensible lies and motives to scam the world in order to acquire some moon dust.


That means you haven't understood the meat of my arguments!
I have said this a couple of times earlier and will repeat: I firmly believe that man landed on the Moon. Period! But we are NOT being told the complete truth about the space programs.

You may like to read this thread of mine if you have the time and inclination...

The Top Secret US Military Space Program. Is The Future Already Here?


If you know what they are mining, how much they are mining? What is the value of that stuff? Who is buying it?. And what they are doing with it? And how they are getting it all through customs? How are they keeping it out of the hands of criminals and children etc. Pray tell.


Jesus Christ! Where did I say all this? I haven't the faintest clue whether the Moon IS being mined or not. Ask John Lear! But as far as I'm concerned, it's possible but not definitive. Get the difference?



I have to stop now, otherwise I will give you the opportunity to answer with NASA propaganda.

And no! I ain't no NASA disinfo dude!



You will answer quickly if you have thoughts of your own.
I hope you do not disappear around to the dark side of the lunar surface as most of the regurge crew does.


How quick? Will this do? And don't worry. I won't turn tail and disappear. And by the way, I thought you were aware that there is no such thing as the 'dark side' of the Moon as you've mentioned? It's the FAR side of the Moon for Chrissake!


The Dark Side is only in Star Wars! Seeing too many flicks, what?


Cheers!




[edit on 7-4-2009 by mikesingh]



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


I wish I didn't APOLLOgize! J.C. LOL



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


Hmm...the plot thickens doesn't it mike.

While i'm here, could you or someone else clarify something that has just popped into my head please?

Kind of related..

When the space shuttle launches, and achieves Earth orbit, it needs to reach approximately 25-26,000 Mph, right?

And when the shuttle re-enters Earths atmosphere, it does so at a rate of approx 15-16,000 Mph, yes?

It is often said that the shuttle has to hold a precise angle relative to the friction of the atmosphere or else it would burn up due to friction.

Well...Why is it that friction is such a big deal on the way back in at 16,000Mph, but not so on the way out at 26,000 Mph?

I've never seen a film, documentary, or official tape where everyone was holding their collective breaths on escape, but everyone does on re-entry?

Why is this?

spikey.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 


I'm no expert but if you're leaving an atmosphere the friction on the craft is much less than entering an atmosphere.....

Imagine busting out of water if you were a dolphin to make a dive.. or more likely just jumping out of water as yourself.. vs. doing a belly-flop on the water while diving off a diving board vs. doing a perfect dive.

It hurts when you flop.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 


When the shuttle leaves the atmosphere it is flying at about 17,500 mph, the same speed at which it reenters the atmosphere.

Both launch and reentry are critical and dangerous aspects of orbital flight. Both Columbia and Challenger showed us that. I don't know about you, but I pretty much hold my breath for the full 8.5 minutes between the time the shuttle leaves the ground until it reaches orbit.


[edit on 4/7/2009 by Phage]



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
Well...Why is it that friction is such a big deal on the way back in at 16,000Mph, but not so on the way out at 26,000 Mph?

I've never seen a film, documentary, or official tape where everyone was holding their collective breaths on escape, but everyone does on re-entry?

Like phage said, everyone IS holding their breath on launch, especially after Challenger. The shuttle presents a smaller surface to the atmosphere at launch though, and it's gaining altitude more rapdily than it's gaining horizontal speed at first, getting out of the thick atmosphere before it really picks up the most of its lateral speed. That said, they do have to carefully control the aerodynamic load, or dynamic pressure, so that the vehicle isn't over-stressed. Dynamic load builds on launch more than temperature (for the reasons stated above), and they actually throttle the shuttle down early in the launch until they've passed the point of maximum loading where they're out of the densest part of the atmosphere and it's safe to throttle up all the way, hence the "go for throttle-up" call.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 


Phage and ngchunter explained it already, but I would like to add something.

When going up, the shuttle is accelerating from 0 to 16,000Mph, and while it gains speed it also gains altitude, and the air gets thinner.

When reentering, it starts at 16,000Mph and has to keep from accelerating (gravity is making it accelerate), while the atmosphere gets thicker and the friction worse.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by spikey
 


""Both launch and reentry are critical and dangerous aspects of orbital flight. Both Columbia and Challenger showed us that. I don't know about you, but I pretty much hold my breath for the full 8.5 minutes between the time the shuttle leaves the ground until it reaches orbit.""

The altitude of Challenger had nothing to do with the atmospheric barrier when it blew. I would venture to guess you know precisely what happened.
Oh Yeah! "O ring" external contractor.
Challenger disintegrated by whacking a normally flying aircraft.
I could be wrong but the debris spread was unlike a reentry disintegration caused by A FOAM ANYTHING.
(or a tile or a Stinger bla bla.)

You better hold your Breath a lot longer as the house of cards comes tumbling down.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by spikey
 


Phage and ngchunter explained it already, but I would like to add something.

When going up, the shuttle is accelerating from 0 to 16,000Mph, and while it gains speed it also gains altitude, and the air gets thinner.

When reentering, it starts at 16,000Mph and has to keep from accelerating (gravity is making it accelerate), while the atmosphere gets thicker and the friction worse.


Spot on! The correct explanation!
And friction lessens as we gain altitude due to attenuation of atmospheric density. The opposite whilst descending. Whilst ascending, you've already left the stratosphere behind at a much lower speed (though accelerating) and thus lesser friction.

Remember, friction is not all bad. It helps in slowing down the shuttle whilst descending to reach terminal velocity. By allowing it to have a controlled entry into the upper atmosphere, the resulting friction with the atmosphere avoids the use of costly and heavy fuel that would otherwise be required to slow it down.

Cheers!




[edit on 8-4-2009 by mikesingh]



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
Challenger disintegrated by whacking a normally flying aircraft.
I could be wrong but the debris spread was unlike a reentry disintegration caused by A FOAM ANYTHING.
(or a tile or a Stinger bla bla.)

You better hold your Breath a lot longer as the house of cards comes tumbling down.

Challenger disintegrated after an o-ring failure caused a burn-through and explosion of the external tank. It did not "whack" a normally flying aircraft. First, airspace around any launch is tightly restricted and monitored. Secondly, I was there, I saw it blow up, there were no other planes in the sky anywhere near it.

[edit on 8-4-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


Yeah my bad.
The second shuttle was Colombia I said it was Challenge also.
But it doesn't change much.
The one you watched blow up was nowheres near the atmosphere barrier so when talking reentry of egressing the atmosphere do not use this craft for an example.

Spacecraft #2 Colombia must have wacked something after rentry.
It did not desinergrate at the reentry point. Way lower.





new topics
top topics
 
114
<< 22  23  24    26 >>

log in

join