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.

 

Apollo Hardware Spotted!

page: 14
58
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   
GPS on the moon? You know you need at least one satellite and one ground station for GPS right?




posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by debunky
GPS on the moon? You know you need at least one satellite and one ground station for GPS right?

Actually you need four GPS satellites...

There are three axes in space (X, Y, Z) plus time which have to be calculated. Four unknowns thus four equations are required to solve for position. One satellite will only give you your distance from it.

FWIW, I am an actual human spaceflight engineer with roughly a decade of experience in guidance, navigation, and control (the first two of which use GPS technology)

[edit on 19-7-2009 by Credulity Kills]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by TurkeyBurgers I mean Technically couldn't you build a house of cards on the moon and since there is no atmosphere it would not get blown over?


NASA says...


December 7, 2005: Every lunar morning, when the sun first peeks over the dusty soil of the moon after two weeks of frigid lunar night, a strange storm stirs the surface.

The next time you see the moon, trace your finger along the terminator, the dividing line between lunar night and day. That's where the storm is. It's a long and skinny dust storm, stretching all the way from the north pole to the south pole, swirling across the surface, following the terminator as sunrise ceaselessly sweeps around the moon.


Moon Storms

science.nasa.gov...


Amazing the Apollo 14 picture show footsteps then



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by obilesk
 



So, if we took the Ikonos and sent it to the moon, we could get great pics?


Yes. Of rocks, craters, escarpments....it'd be like spending enormous sums of money and energy to photograph, in great detail, the Sahara Desert.


Aaaaannnd...Apollo stuff. That is, if we wanted to and we put it into an orbit that would allow for it. Is that correct?


And yes, I now realize the bonus nature of the mission. I am not disputing that, or the reality of our having landed on the moon. Just curious about whether we actually have the technology and capability to take decent, defined pictures of artificial objects on a non-earth solar body. My indignation was directed towards a multi-billion $ Agency that uses high tech equipment to get crappy equipment into space and uses high tech equipment to protect and power crappy equipment once said crap equipment is in place (wherever).

I don't pretend to be fully knowledgeable about what they use, but when I hear the shuttle and our satellites and even the Mars Rovers use equipment less advanced than I can get at Newegg.com, it just baffles me.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by conar
 

The "dust storms" are not caused by wind but probably by electrostatic forces. Very fine particles of dust are lifted and pulled from the night-side to the day-side. It only happens once a month but given enough time, the bootprints probably will disappear.

Drawn by differences in global charge accumulation, floating dust would naturally fly from the strongly-negative nightside to the weakly-negative dayside. This "dust storm" effect would be strongest at the Moon's terminator, the dividing line between day and night.

science.nasa.gov...



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by obilesk
 


The equipment is not less advanced, it has to be much more hardened than what we can buy in the stores, and they have to control all things that may change the working of the camera.

Mars Express, for example, includes in the information sent about the photos the temperature of the camera and the temperature of the lens, both things change the way the camera work, so they must be taken into account to adjust the resulting image to the conditions in which the photo was taken.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
The "dust storms" are not caused by wind but probably by electrostatic forces.


As you say 'probably'. But this is why NASA gets its reputation. For centuries astronomers have claimed sightings of dust clouds on the moon. Mostly they were told they were 'seeing things' Yet NASA has tracked and recorded these sightings in a TLP collection dating to 1556...

They knew about the sunset rays from Surveyor but decided the public did not need to know about dust particles in the lunar atmosphere that creates these rays. Then they do an about turn and publish the Moon Storms and Moon Fountains pages with a story that to the average reader sounds more sci fi than even John's stories...

OH and before the "There is no atmosphere on the moon" soothsayers start preaching their gobblygook...

According to NASA... yes there is, albeit they say its a small one

Moon Fact Sheet
nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

And they use embellishment with equal abandon


As an example they compare the Lunar rays to crepuscular rays on Earth




"The Moon seems to have a tenuous atmosphere of moving dust particles," Stubbs explains. "We use the word 'fountain' to evoke the idea of a drinking fountain: the arc of water coming out of the spout looks static, but we know the water molecules are in motion." In the same way, individual bits of moondust are constantly leaping up from and falling back to the Moon's surface, giving rise to a "dust atmosphere" that looks static but is composed of dust particles in constant motion.



Would these craters have a strong surplus of negative charge? Astronauts need to know, because in the years ahead NASA plans to send people back to the Moon, and deep dark craters are places where they might find pockets of frozen water--a crucial resource for any colony. Will they also encounter swarms of electric dust?

It's not science fiction any more.


science.nasa.gov...

A dust atmosphere and levitating moon dust, negatively charged on the night side, positively charged on the day side... swarms of electric dust


Astronauts may have seen the storms, too. While orbiting the Moon, the crews of Apollo 8, 10, 12, and 17 sketched "bands" or "twilight rays" where sunlight was apparently filtering through dust above the moon's surface. This happened before each lunar sunrise and just after each lunar sunset. NASA's Surveyor spacecraft also photographed twilight "horizon glows," much like what the astronauts saw.


science.nasa.gov...

So we have photos from Surveyor and sketches of these rays from FOUR Apollo missions... and here it is 40 years later and they have shown us ONE from Apollo 17? And why did not ONE of those astronauts not point his chest camera at those rays? Seems to me would have made a spectacular image from another world, considering how good they were at precise framing


Not one thought it worth a picture, yet took the trouble to sketch it?

And with cheesy sensationalistic headlines like this...


NASA Flyby Shooting of Venus


June 5, 2007: Picture this: A spaceship swoops in from the void, plunging toward a cloudy planet about the size of Earth. A laser beam lances out from the ship; it probes the planet's clouds, striving to reach the hidden surface below. Meanwhile, back on the craft's home world, scientists perch on the edge of their seats waiting to see what happens.

Sounds like science fiction? This is real, and it's happening today.


science.nasa.gov...

So what was that all about?
Were they pissed at all those Venusians that stopped by Earth in the late 50's and decided to send them a 'message'
Kinda like gangster... zip by the planet at thousands of miles an hour and take pot shots. Nice way to piss off the locals
Not bad enogh we are crashing our way through the solar system in the name of 'science'










[edit on 19-7-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by obilesk
I don't pretend to be fully knowledgeable about what they use, but when I hear the shuttle and our satellites and even the Mars Rovers use equipment less advanced than I can get at Newegg.com, it just baffles me.


Would the stuff you can get from newegg.com work on Mars or the moon? Would it survive the trip and be able to send back images to earth? I don't think it's so much "less advanced" as a whole different level of technology.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pauligirl
Would the stuff you can get from newegg.com work on Mars or the moon?


Most likely, yes.. after all if seventh grader science project work out in space...

www.hightechscience.org...

and amateur rocket clubs are launching home made stuff at NASA in Houston and on NASA AMES field seems its no biggy


And I am willing to bet any HAM radio operator worth his salt could toss together something that would send a reliable signal back from Mars.

But heck we can always do what NASA is doing... check out the space junkyards for older hardware that still works. I hear that since they forgot how to go to the moon they are digging up that old space junque themselves

NASA Forgot How To Go To The Moon!!!
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 19-7-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
And why did not ONE of those astronauts not point his chest camera at those rays? Seems to me would have made a spectacular image from another world, considering how good they were at precise framing
Weren't those images visible only from space and not on the Moon itself?

If they were then they did not had to use the chest cameras, they could use them as normal cameras (or use other cameras, I don't know if they had any camera only for "indoor use"), so they get good photos.

Edited to correct the BBCode

[edit on 19/7/2009 by ArMaP]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by debunky
GPS on the moon? You know you need at least one satellite and one ground station for GPS right?


Well, you can replace the abbreviation GPS with the words Exact Position.

You could also replace the use of the Hubble for photographing lunar equipment with an ambitious high school space project. If kids can send equipment near Low Earth orbit and take pictures of the Earth surface for the astronomical amounts of ...just 50 dollars, Imagine what you could do with a 50k donated for this cause. Or imagine what you could do with the same amount of money Google is spending for the Moon 2.0. 50k for example It's just the price of a really good new car, all for the sake of good science of course that we don't seem to have the ability of pursuing for our younger generations for some strange reason.

Unless as i stated before there are things on the Moon that are not supposed to be there. Be it either of non earthly origin or ..plain earthly and belong to the military for example.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by spacebot
 


The Hubble space telescope would give you a very lousy picture of the moon. Its optics were not designed for that at all. You'd do better with a camera and a zoom lens.As far as the rest of the post I'm not sure what you were getting out care to continue?


[edit on 7/19/09 by dragonridr]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pauligirl

Would the stuff you can get from newegg.com work on Mars or the moon? Would it survive the trip and be able to send back images to earth? I don't think it's so much "less advanced" as a whole different level of technology.


I guess it could be a matter of apples and oranges. But what if I got funding and put a bee's knees camera inside a module that will protect it, put it in orbit around the moon and took pictures. Would it be any different than what NASA can do? Probably not if the conditions in which our best tech is subjected limit our ability to get as good of pics as those that are facing earth. But if the same (with small margin for error) conditions apply to both planetary bodies, one would expect the same results from Moon pics as with Terran pics. Yes, radiation is worse there, but the pics we get are pretty good even with the radiation. Assuming the quality of the cameras aren't the issue, the difference then becomes, in my mind, the distance we are from the area we are photographing. Can't we just get closer?


Originally posted by ArMaP
 


The equipment is not less advanced, it has to be much more hardened than what we can buy in the stores, and they have to control all things that may change the working of the camera.

Mars Express, for example, includes in the information sent about the photos the temperature of the camera and the temperature of the lens, both things change the way the camera work, so they must be taken into account to adjust the resulting image to the conditions in which the photo was taken.


That makes sense, I guess. If the sensors that monitor that information and the devices that compile and send that information have anything to do with the actual lens on the camera, then I could buy that. You sure they just don't use the bare minimum for the project - skimping on the lens?

edit sp

[edit on 19-7-2009 by obilesk]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Most likely, yes.. after all if seventh grader science project work out in space...

www.hightechscience.org...



Cute. But didn't the 7th graders design their project to go into space? Would it have worked with something off the shelf?

Really, would off the shelf components survive and work on Mars?



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaPWeren't those images visible only from space and not on the Moon itself?


No they were seen from the Moon surface...

Surveyor Observations of Lunar Horizon-Glow

Surveyor One



Surveyor 1 Solar Corona Spike "Solar corona in the photograph observed by Surveyor 1, 16 minutes after sunset on the Moon June 14,1966," was remarked Gordon Newkirk, of the High Altitude Observatory. "A bright coronal streamer is visible as a thin pencil of light extending out of the brighter inner corona, against which the lunar horizon is silhouetted."

NASA contrast adjusted



I have no idea what the mushroom shaped 'dust cloud' is


Surveyor Six
67-H-1642
November 24, 1967


Sunlight diffracted at Moon's limb as seen in Surveyor VI picture of the horizon west of spacecraft.

Surveyor Seven



Courtesy NASA/JPL
Illumination along western horizon approximately 15 minutes after local sunset.



Courtesy NASA/JPL
Illumination along western horizon approximately 90 minutes after local sunset.

[edit on 19-7-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pauligirl
Really, would off the shelf components survive and work on Mars?


And why would you think they wouldn't?
Velcro was developed by NASA, yet today its 'on the shelf" Why would publicly available tech not work for special applications?



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Um. Riiiight. Using that metaphor is like saying if you cut off a mouse's tail it will only give birth to tail-less offspring.

But I agree, off-the-shelf stuff will work in space. You just have to put them in space with protective gear and monitoring sensors and stuff. There is room for specialized equipment in all professions, but walmart brand could do in a pinch.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Reality Check

In several threads I have posted images that I have made claims are in fact spacecraft. I even did one thread that many recall posting a series of images cropped from NASA that I claimed were spacecraft FOR SURE...

In the test I did not immediately give the source, because the test was "what do you see.... ArMaP I know remembers that test


Well I got, as expected the usual "Paredolia": "Its just rocks"; "what makes you think its a spacecraft? Your nuts"; "Its just blurry pictures of nothing" comments. It was actually hilarious because a simple google search would have shown what it was...

Here are four examples...









What are they?

Viking 1, Viking 2, Closeup of Viking, taken by MGS Mars Global Surveyor
Phoenix landing taken by MRO Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter

Now many of those same detractors are here in this thread clamoring about these Apollo hardware images that look exactly the same and spouting about how these are OBVIOUSLY Apollo spacecraft


Now what is so special about this silly LRO toy NASA sent? I mean heck back 40 years ago we could do the same with Lunar Orbiter


But all you skeptics keep telling us we can't see anything in those fuzzy old images...

Yet I posted this many times in the past... its on my Surveyor page...

Told you all it was the Surveyor One spacecraft... based on the same LOGIC that Phage quoted... that the Apollo items could be rocks, but we EXPECT there to be a spaceship at that spot, so it must be a spaceship...

Well I applied that same logic to the LO image... still didn't help...






Funny thing... NASA was the one who put that red circle on that image, not me


Lunar Orbiter 3 high resolution image of the Surveyor 1 spacecraft and landing site. This image shows the area within the Flamsteed ring in Oceanus Procellarum on the moon. The spacecraft is the bright spot at the center of the red circle. The shadow of the 1 meter wide solar panels can also be seen. The width of the framelets (the spacing between the horizontal lines on the image) is about 220 meters. (Lunar Orbiter 3, frame 194-H3)


LO-3-194-H3
nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

So right now it seems LRO is no better at showing us what's on the moon than LO was 40 years ago...


When LRO 'gets up to speed" as some claim we must wait for.... call me

In the meantime, no matter the red herring of 'true color' what I want to see is the .5 meter quality I can get from the public channel at Ikonos




posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pauligirl

Originally posted by zorgon

Most likely, yes.. after all if seventh grader science project work out in space...

www.hightechscience.org...



Cute. But didn't the 7th graders design their project to go into space? Would it have worked with something off the shelf?

Really, would off the shelf components survive and work on Mars?


No.
Simple answer is NO.
Space is an extreme environment and the parts would need to be tough enough and hardened enough to handle all the issues related sending the device into space and or to an alien world.

Also keep in mind that the 7th graders experiment involved growing crystals and not building and testing electronics.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
No.
Simple answer is NO.


So what you are saying is if I took my old Brownie box camera (about as simple as it gets but it has 120 negatives
) up to the ISS for a space tour it wouldn't work to take pictures out of the window?



Hey have you been on one of those Navy space cruisers yet? Just wondering what the food is like




top topics



 
58
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join