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: 18
58
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Baracas
 



We can see the mars rover at less than 10 feet wide and its tracks and mast.... in full color...


I believe the camera on the MRO is better....the LROC isn't really designed to take photos asits primary mission.

Please see some of the posts in the thread, regarding the equipment suite on the LRO.

EDIT:

With apologies to Phage, here's what he p[osted regarding the LRO equipment:


Originally posted by Phage
There's a lot of stuff packed on that little bugger:

Cosmic Ray Telescope for the Effects of Radiation (CRaTER)
Diviner Lunar Radiometer Experiment (DIVINER)
Lyman-Alpha Mapping Project (LAMP)
Lunar Exploration Neutron Detector (LEND)
The Lunar Orbiter Laser Altimeter (LOLA)
The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera (LROC)
Mini-RF is a technology demonstration of an advanced single aperture radar (SAR)
www.planetary.org...

Taking pictures is really a small part of the mission.




[edit on 20 July 2009 by weedwhacker]




posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   
we should see some calibrated images from LRO soon..
lroc.sese.asu.edu...



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   
What I find really amusing is that now the moon landing conspiracy "people", are claiming that because the pictures aren't clear enough, that is evidence that they're right....So the lack of evidence is evidence????

And yet they completely ignore the mountains of evidence PROVING there have been moon landings.

It's like a religion to these people.....Don't listen to the "non-believers", have FAITH that you are right and dismiss all the evidence that you are not as it will interfere with your faith


jra

posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Baracas
We can see the mars rover at less than 10 feet wide and its tracks and mast.... in full color... (marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov...) C'Mon , but this is all we get of the landing sites from a billion dollar high def camera


The camera on MRO is different than the one on the LRO. And its been said many times. Wait till the LRO is in it's proper orbit. When it takes images of the landing sites again, we will be able to see the LM and other things left behind more clearly.

Oh and the LRO itself doesn't even cost one billion, let alone the camera...



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker.the LROC isn't really designed to take photos asits primary mission.


Ah I see... so after waiting 40 years we will still not see anything because they aren't there to take pictures


But they had those landing site snaps out there mighty quick

Makes sense



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra
Oh and the LRO itself doesn't even cost one billion, let alone the camera...


It does with all the launch and support team stuff



Originally posted by jfj123Don't listen to the "non-believers", have FAITH that you are right and dismiss all the evidence that you are not as it will interfere with your faith


Quite right
After all the "non-believers" have an agenda/


[edit on 20-7-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   
A lot of conspirasists don't doubt that we have been on the moon... its just the doubt of how we landed humans there in the late 60's with the technology then (not objects) as well as what was already up there and what is NASA is actually covering up.... there is a lot more there than was just put on the surface in the last 40 years.... I think the anomaly evidence can support that amazingly well... Nasa will not release any high resolution images of those areas without a smudgeout... Clemintine, JAXA and Chandryn images as well.... Its our history as human beings... Its all much bigger than any of us... I know.. I know... all in the name of INTERGALACTIC security... Right?????

Interesting they still haven't completely "re-deveoped" the technology to go there and actually protect living tissue... or have they???



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Baracas

Interesting they still haven't completely "re-deveoped" the technology to go there and actually protect living tissue... or have they???


The long and short of it is that going to the moon in the 60's was FANTASTICALLY dangerous. As a matter of fact, there was a 50 % chance that once they landed on the moon, they'd take off again.
Those types of safety factors would simply not fly today and that is why things are taking longer then the original missions.

Before it was a race at any cost. Now it's safety first.

Hopefully that clarifies things.

[edit on 20-7-2009 by jfj123]



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Apollo aniversary streamed live now
www.nasa.gov...



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by Baracas

Interesting they still haven't completely "re-deveoped" the technology to go there and actually protect living tissue... or have they???


The long and short of it is that going to the moon in the 60's was FANTASTICALLY dangerous. As a matter of fact, there was a 50 % chance that once they landed on the moon, they'd take off again.
Those types of safety factors would simply not fly today and that is why things are taking longer then the original missions.

Before it was a race at any cost. Now it's safety first.

Hopefully that clarifies things.

[edit on 20-7-2009 by jfj123]


Thats part of the reason the other part is the Apollo missions were not trying to keep people on the moon it was a quick turn around.Thats why radiation exposure was only of minor concern keeping somebody on the moon for two days is allot different then 2 months. Radiation levels that someone can handle in 2 days would kill someone at those same levels after a couple of months. They had a different purpose back then they weren't planning toward colonization they were on a road trip.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   
I think that some people forget (or ignore) what common people can do when they really want to do it and use their manual and cerebral skills.

Yes, the technology was not as good as today's technology, but they had the basics covered: communications, radar, computers, means of transportation, etc.

The fact that we now rely much more on technology does not mean that we cannot do things without it, we really can.

Some centuries ago, Portugal was a somewhat similar situation, when, with small (20 metres long) ships (caravels) they started to explore the Atlantic ocean along the west coast of Africa, up to what is now Cape Town and even along the east coast of Africa, up to India.

At the time, these ships were a new technology created by the Portuguese, based on North African ships, and many people thought that they could not reach far away regions like India and Japan (as they did) or even new lands (like the Americas).

So, whenever I see people say that something could not be done in the "old days" I always think how many times more people will say that about old things or what people in the future will say about today's things.

Maybe in another 40 years people will say "how could they communicate with those old computers and analog modems, that's impossible".



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Before it was a race at any cost. Now it's safety first.


The latest launch of the shuttle delayed three time with serious fuel leaks. Once in space stuff started peeling off

Safety first at NASA?

The same NASA that was commissioned to do an independent study on commercial airline safety and tried to hide the results, only to have Congress demand the report?

That safety first?


ust last week, NASA sent out an email to those involved in the project, asking them to destroy any data that they had on hand. Some people believe that it's because NASA wants to make sure they are sitting on all of the data themselves and no one else has it out there.

NASA has stated that the information is sensitive, it could hurt the airlines and it could undermine the confidence of the flying public. There are some in NASA who believe they may still be preparing a report on all of this data, but NASA officials have yet to confirm this.


blogs.abcnews.com...

And you want to trust these bozo's with space travel for all mankind?



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by jfj123
Before it was a race at any cost. Now it's safety first.


The latest launch of the shuttle delayed three time with serious fuel leaks.

Wait why were they delayed? Due to safety concerns

They delay shuttle launches due to slightly off weather conditions too.


And you want to trust these bozo's with space travel for all mankind?

Who do you suggest we trust? The reptilians ???



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Baracas
These Apollo images are NASA Bulls**T!!! We can see the mars rover at less than 10 feet wide and its tracks and mast.... in full color... (marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov...) C'Mon , but this is all we get of the landing sites from a billion dollar high def camera.... Lies Lies Lies!!!!

Billion dollar camera? Hardly. The entire mission; launch, ground network, operations, instruments, and spacecraft combined cost less than 500 million. The total cost of the MRO spacecraft was 720 million. MRO's camera has a resolution of about .3 meters, LRO will have a resolution of about .5 meters when it reaches final orbit, so they're not too different at all. MRO takes tricolor images, so it requires three greyscale images to compose a single color image. LRO has color filters for its widefield camera, but it's really not necessary to get high resolution color images when the objective is to map general resource locations at this point. You accomplish that goal much faster by taking a fairly broad look at first. You could always apply the widefield color data to narrowfield images if you want to see colors.


you wont ever see them until ground scopes can digitally image them in high def...

No scope on earth can even come close to what LRO can do, nor will it in our lifetimes.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
As a matter of fact, there was a 50 % chance that once they landed on the moon, they'd take off again.


So NASA flipped a coin and it came up heads seven times in a row...

But then again, NASA does make their own luck own in the desert.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Who do you suggest we trust? The reptilians ???


Don't be silly, they work with NASA...

I would place my money on Russia in the next few years



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by jfj123
As a matter of fact, there was a 50 % chance that once they landed on the moon, they'd take off again.


So NASA flipped a coin and it came up heads seven times in a row...

But then again, NASA does make their own luck own in the desert.


Sorry I should have made this more clear. I believe this was a one time issue. Checking historical data now and will post when I find it.

Obviously you believe that nobody ever landed on the moon. Just curious but can you provide one shred of evidence ?



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Obviously you believe that nobody ever landed on the moon.



Where do I state that I "believe that nobody ever landed on the moon"?

Surely you would be able to find such a statement - if it existed...



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by jfj123

Obviously you believe that nobody ever landed on the moon.



Where do I state that I "believe that nobody ever landed on the moon"?

Surely you would be able to find such a statement - if it existed...



So what does this mean exactly?


But then again, NASA does make their own luck own in the desert.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 06:28 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Again:

Where do I state that I "believe that nobody ever landed on the moon"?

*You must not be able find a statement where I say that I "believe that nobody ever landed on the moon"...



new topics

top topics



 
58
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join