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 to Take Photos of the Lunar Landing Sites to End Conspiracy Theories

page: 10
19
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Originally posted by WatchNLearn



*note for newbie conspiracy watchers - Notice how Weedy starts off with the classic debunker attack ... rude, derogatory ...


NO....read closely, you'll see the problem I have is with OTHERS who spout the nonsense, NOT with any ATS members.



... remarks about my intelligence


Please do not put words into what I didn't write...

...

and that all people who believe in the hoax are “crazy”.



Please show, from my post, where I claimed "...that all people who believe in the hoax are "crazy"." Can you point out that sentence, that you claim I wrote? Thanks.



*note for newbie conspiracy watchers ..... even though they can never produce a reference...


AND THEN, THIS:


Sorry Weedy, just a cursory google “micrometeorite shuttle impact” shows I am VERY correct, and your statement is, well – unfounded….


OK...challenge accepted. I didn't wish to turn this into a "googlefest", but YOU brought it up....

www.wirespecialties.com...

Micrometeorite debris is a very real threat to the safety of any astronaut. Since the orbiter is designed to spend an indefinite time in space, it is probable that it could be hit by such debris. In turn, the vehicle needs to be able to survive a substantial impact to any location of the orbiter and still be able to carry out its mission objectives.

Two scenarios are likely to occur due to a micrometeorite impact - depressurization or fatal damage to the thermal protection system. Damage to the TPS has been resolved by the use of the new ARMOR plating as opposed to the ceramic tiles used on the shuttle, but for extra security two layers of ARMOR is used so that an impact to the outer layer would not compromise the inner layer's integrity. The details of the TPS and ARMOR can be found in the TPS Subsystem Report.

Depressurization is a very real possibility as well, and in turn the inner layer of the vehicle airframe is lined with Kevlar and Teflon. This, while not maintaining pressure, prevents internals from being damaged by the impact and keeps an "exit wound" from forming, or two breeches in the hull by the same piece of debris. The Kevlar and Teflon will slow the depressurization, allowing the astronauts to enter their pressure suits, or if docked to exit the vehicle and seal the hatch.

Not all debris impacts during spaceflight are detected when they occur, and such impacts should be known before any reentry.


Really, it's simple -- space flight IS dangerous. No question. Funny, though, the Apollo 'conspiracists' attempt to use the perceived "dangers" of the trip from Earth to Moon as an example, when, in fact, it is far, far more dangerous in LEO, because of all of the MAN-MADE debris!!! See, a 'micro-meteorite' doesn't necessarily have to be 'natural'...a small fleck of paint, for example, at 14,000 kps is quite hazardous.

Well, you don't have to take MY word for it...here's a Q&A with a Shuttle Astronaut:


www.mail-archive.com...@meteoritecentral.com/msg23991.html

Mark: Did any meteorite damage happen during any of the the STS flights you were on?


Kenneth Cockrell:
Statistically, significant damage from meteorites is almost non-existent. With many years in orbit, the MIR space station, the ISS, and their predecessors (Skylad, Salyut, ect.) suffered no damage that was ever detected by the crews or by any sensors on the vehicles. With much shorter times in orbit, the space shuttle is even less liely to receive meteorite damage.
*skip*

.... We don't fly the shuttle during the Perseus or Leonid acitivity....
*skip*

A slightly bigger risk for us is damge from "orbital debris," man-made objects in decaying orbits aorund the Earth. The U.S. Space Command tracks the bigger pieces of this "space junk", and we plan our flights to avoid everything that we know about.....
*skip*

...Debris that is too small to be tracked does occasionally hit the shuttle. I don't think anyone has ever heard an impact, but many of us have found damage to a window, in the form of a tiny star-shaped crack (like might be made by a pellet gun to a car window) when we looked through it on a new day on orbit.

In the late '80's and early '90's, NASA did some research on the nature of space debris and micrometeorites using the Long Duration Exposure Facility (LDEF) satellite. Space shuttle mission STS-32 retrieved LDEF from orbit. You might be able to find some of the results of that researhc on the NASA web site.


Good enough to dispute the 'Hoax" theorists??? Did I bring enough to satisfy even the "newbies"???


No, I didn’t suggest that, but as I said to Yeti – why doesn’t the Shuttle use the same computers Apollo did?



…so why would the Shuttle need such sophisticated computers now??


Did you really wish to ask those two questions? Seriously??

By that logic, then modern jet airliners should still use the technology from the 1960s era aviation......seems those old airplanes, with their technology, managed to navigate the World too...just different tech.


Yes, and some "Hoax" conspiracists are really SMART


"Some" of them are....that's why they are making a good living selling their snake oil nonsense to unsuspecting buyers.....

[edit on 14 July 2009 by weedwhacker]




posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


A follow-on discussion, for the "newbies", about the radiation...no, the alleged "killer radiation"
in deep space flight:

www.space.com...
(picking up the narrative down the page somewhat).....


Total exposure

*skip*

This much they know:

Any trip beyond Earth orbit will involve radiation threats not faced by residents of the International Space Station, which sits inside the planet's magnetic field.

A 2-1/2-year trip to Mars, including six months of travel time each way, would expose an astronaut to nearly the lifetime limit of radiation allowed under NASA guidelines.

The Moon, with no atmosphere, is more dangerous than the surface of Mars. Lunar forays will have to be brief unless expensive shielded habitats are built.

Mission planners knew the Apollo astronauts would be at grave risk if a strong solar flare occurred during a mission. The short duration of each trip was a key to creating favorable odds.


"A big solar event during one of those missions could have been catastrophic," said Cary Zeitlin, a radiation expert at the National Space Biomedical Research Institute at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. "The risk was known. They gambled a bit."



SO, once again, those who like to sputter and shout that the Apollo manned Lunar missions were "impossible because of the deadly radiation" are shown to be the ones who really don't do the research.

OF COURSE, the 'Van Allen Belts' will always be brought up, so just to keep things together, here:

imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...

The Question
(Submitted February 28, 1997)

I wonder if you could tell me exactly what the VAN ALLEN BELT is and how much radiation does it contain, ie how many rems of radiation are there out there? Plus, what protection would organic life need to be protected from this radiation?


The Answer
David Stern, a researcher in another lab here at Goddard, has graciously supplied an answer to your question, given below:
"The radiation belts are regions of high-energy particles, mainly protons and electrons, held captive by the magnetic influence of the Earth. They have two main sources. A small but very intense "inner belt" (some call it "The Van Allen Belt" because it was discovered in 1958 by James Van Allen of the University of Iowa) is trapped within 4000 miles or or so of the Earth's surface. It consists mainly a high-energy protons (10-50 MeV) and is a by-product of the cosmic radiation, a thin drizzle of very fast protons and nuclei which apparently fill all our galaxy.
*skip*

"I looked up a typical satellite passing the radiation belts (elliptic orbit, 200 miles to 20000 miles) and the radiation dosage per year is about 2500 rem, assuming one is shielded by 1 gr/cm-square of aluminum (about 1/8" thick plate) almost all of it while passing the inner belt. But there is no danger.


SO...a satellite that orbits the Earth and continually passes through the VABs, over and over again, for an entire YEAR receives an accumlated 'dose' of about 2500rem. Apollo Astronauts passed through the VABs twice...total exposure time measured in just minutes.

NOW....shall we examine what exactly 2500rem of radiation is, and how that compares to, say, how many chest Xrays for a comparative risk to Humans? Or, would everyone, instead, just care to look it up for themselves? Hmmm???

Have fun learning!!!

edit:

I feel generous, today.

Here's a quote from a US Gov't chart:
"In the United States, the average person is exposed to an effective dose equivalent of approximately 360 mrem (whole-body exposure) per year from all sources (NCRP Report No. 93)."

2500 rem is = to 250,000 mrem (One rem is 1000 mrem)

That's 695 times the average dose of the average person in the United States. Sounds like a lot? Well, consider the above about a satellite, in orbit, passing through the VABs at least TWICE each orbit, for an entire year. Simple math will show that in one day out of that year, the satellite encounters 685 mrem. That's about twice the 'average person' dose....but, remember that the satellite passes THROUGH the VABS multiple times per day....in an average 90-minute orbital period, that means in one day it passes through 32 times (16 ninety-minute periods in 24 hours, times 2).

685 divided by 32? 21.2 mrem per encounter.

There! See how easy that was???

[edit on 14 July 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   
i THOUGHT NASA WORKED FOR US GUESS NOT



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Is this perhaps the first step from NASA before this "back to the moon" mission?

Found this site.
WE CHOOSE THE MOON

If I understand it right, this site is in "real-time" and will give the viewer a sense of "reliving" the whole moon landing mission again.

EDIT: Made a new thread on this instead.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 14-7-2009 by Akezzon]

[edit on 14-7-2009 by Akezzon]



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 04:55 AM
link   
Wow. The fact that 40 years later NASA is trying to prove they landed on the Moon makes me question if they did or not.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 05:02 AM
link   
I feel bad for NASA. I feel bad for NASA because...Even if NASA takes photographs of the moon to disprove conspiracies, people are going to make up conspiracies based on NASAs action to take photographs in the first place. And when photographs are released, they're going to say the photographs have been shooped ;\

-sigh- It's just a never ending thing.

Question:

Because of the risks associated with the surface of the moon and radiation, do you think we'll ever see a mission within the next few years? Solar activity is supposed to pick up in 2011-2012 (No, I'm not talking about mayan stuff).

[edit on 15-7-2009 by CidCaldensfey]



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 05:20 AM
link   
reply to post by CidCaldensfey
 


Have you looked at all the posts and read the links everyone has given you.

Also taken in all the data and done your own homework,looked at all the images ,Gone to NASA's web site and looked at there own Photo's and evaluated the evidence and or probabilities that have been shown here in great detail by people and groups that have been involved in studing these anomalies for years.

The information to detail that has been posted here is second to none, the posters are willing to give you credible evidence in detail and go to great lengths to do so on their findings.

Thanks

Ocker



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by ocker
 


ocker, your enthusiasm cannot be in question, but in your zeal I'm afraid you are just too quick to accept nearly anything that even vaguely seems to support your somewhat 'religious' devotion to the 'conspiracy' theories!!

This image, from your post in a different thread:

(This is the post -- www.abovetopsecret.com...)



,,,,has already been shown to be a photo of a facility in Iran...that's here on Earth, BTW.

AND, lest the 'glowing crater' picture is brought up again, THAT has been found to be an actual photo for a Lunar crater, that was manipulated using false color techniques.

Doing real research will do wonders.....


[edit on 15 July 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by CidCaldensfey
I feel bad for NASA. I feel bad for NASA because...Even if NASA takes photographs of the moon to disprove conspiracies, people are going to make up conspiracies based on NASAs action to take photographs in the first place. And when photographs are released, they're going to say the photographs have been shooped ;\

-sigh- It's just a never ending thing.


No my dear it's absolutely not true.

The whole moon thing smells like rotten from 40 years now, not yesterday.

NASA to take pictures of the landing sites to stop conspiracy theories?

AND WHY?? they -plus the other nations who sent their own probes to circle over the moon- ALREADY HAVE THEM FROM YEARS !

There's no need to take other pictures, they already exist. For sure.

**The real question is why nobody in the world ever wanted to show them!!!!!**

Yes, WHY ?



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Doing real research will do wonders.....


Yes it would, wouldn't it?


Unlike skeptics like you who sit and wait for one error, and pounce on it and flaunt it and ignore everything else. But the skeptics do that don't they? Use any tool or slip to distract the thread...

But never seem do do much research themselves (save a few I can name on one hand


[edit on 15-7-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 



Use any tool or slip to distract the thread...


Not any tool....

There do crop up spirited mistakes, though. Wonder why we like to be somewhat cautious about accepting everything??

Good to see you're back...no, that you've returned safe and sound. (didn't want that comment to be taken wrongly...)



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Good to see you're back...no, that you've returned safe and sound. (didn't want that comment to be taken wrongly...)


Thank
Still feels like a Mule kicked me in the gut




posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Still the best optical illusion:

APOLLO15 AS15-P-9625



APOLLO15 AS15-P-9625@100%



APOLLO15 AS15-P-9630@100%



Now it seems a rock but who knows.... some craters seems superimposed


uh-oh! images cropped. What the?



[edit on 15-7-2009 by mystr]



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 02:55 AM
link   
I hope they do i do not trust NASA 100%, but i know they did it, they landed on the moon in apollo 11, and neil armstrong stepped on the surface, they even proved that it was not only possible, but the facts are irreversably true, in an episode of mythbusters. If i were anyone from NASA, despite hiding the proto-cellular formations and claiming that the methane on mars is not organically produced, and releasing photos of "anomolies" but attempting to avoid speaking of them, and pretending to be agnostic on the subject of alh84001 (i hope that is correct), i would still beat the living guts out of anyone who claimed that we didn't land on the moon and walk there in 1969.
That guy that buzz alrin punched, he deserved it, nobody direspects the buzz, despite some irration claims he made.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by mystr
uh-oh! images cropped. What the?


Just right click and 'view image' Its there just to big for the post



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by mystr
uh-oh! images cropped. What the?


Just right click and 'view image' Its there just to big for the post

Thanks Zorgon, I thought they were cropped too.

I have seen other images that were too wide to fit the page appear with a scroll bar at the bottom, like your post here: www.abovetopsecret.com...


Originally posted by zorgon

How is THIS for 'In your face!"




That's why I didn't assume there was any more to these images, but it's nice to see the whole image now that you explained how.

I wonder why the scroll bar appears for some wide images, but not others?



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I wonder why the scroll bar appears for some wide images, but not others?


Because certain image sharing sites have been cleared by staff and still function with the [img] tag. Its automatic... if its an acceptable site it puts it in the slide bar box, if not it gives you the 'external image' gif with link

Hope that clears it up


[edit on 29-7-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 02:43 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker


But Whacky, old pal...

You keep using NASA sources to make your case...

If NASA is lying, of what use is taking their word for it?




OH and By the way...


Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin describe his experience as the second man on the moon - a desolate place, he said, where the air was so thin he felt like a kangaroo as he bounced on the surface.


Buzz Aldrin says "Air on the Moon" (albeit thin)

Incredible... I gotta call John on this one Whoo hooo


Maybe that radiation got him huh?


[edit on 29-7-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I wonder why the scroll bar appears for some wide images, but not others?


Because certain image sharing sites have been cleared by staff and still function with the [img] tag. Its automatic... if its an acceptable site it puts it in the slide bar box, if not it gives you the 'external image' gif with link

Hope that clears it up


The post was about ATS images my friend, doesn't it seem strange that the external images get a scroll bar and the ATS images don't? Should this be reported as a bug?

Image in question re-posted below, note there's no scroll bar (and certainly no external tag as it's an internal image):


Originally posted by mystr
Still the best optical illusion:

APOLLO15 AS15-P-9625@100%




Obviously it would be much better if this image had a scroll bar like the image you posted does, should we report this to ATS as a bug with their images that they don't get the scroll bar like the external images do?.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 03:08 AM
link   
TESTING...



Test complete
SHHHH don't tell em they might fix it
Seems ATS is an accepted site





[edit on 29-7-2009 by zorgon]



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join