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.

 

Ultimate evidence on NASA faking Moon landings (VIDEO)

page: 9
47
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by pepsi78
 


The primary guidance, navigation and control system (PGNCS) on the LM was developed by the MIT Instrumentation Laboratory. The Apollo Guidance Computer was manufactured by Raytheon. A similar guidance system was used in the Command Module. A backup navigation tool, the Abort Guidance System (AGS), was developed by TRW.

To learn lunar landing techniques, astronauts practiced in the Lunar Landing Research Vehicle ( LLRVAt the start of the Apollo program in 1960, there were no simulators for would-be moonwalkers to learn the art and finesse of landing on the lunar surface. So, as the program got under way, NASA began planning for such simulators. Three types were develop), a flying vehicle that simulated the Lunar Module on earth.

www.economicexpert.com...:Lunar:Module.htm






1 Notice how fast it comes down? I can run faster
This were toys, it does not prove anything, controled in slow motion?


2 The LEM was never tested in this situation, it was tested just once in orbit without any descent on the planet. It just orbited.


3 If NASA thinks it's possible, then show me evidence of a craft that drops from orbit and lands on Earth without a parachute.


If what you say is true then there must be a craft by today that can do that. I want to see a craft that falls from orbit and lands with vertical propultion only. No wings, no flaps.


MY QUESTION IS, WHERE IS IT?




posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 

Why drop anything from Earth orbit without a parachute or aerodynamic controls? We have a nice atmosphere to use to help slow down. It wouldn't make much sense to use rockets if you don't have to.


[edit on 11/18/2009 by Phage]



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by pepsi78
 

Why drop anything from Earth orbit without a parachute or aerodynamic controls? We have a nice atmosphere to use to help slow down. It wouldn't make much sense to use rockets if you don't have to.


[edit on 11/18/2009 by Phage]


It's not possible that is why, this is why NASA is testing rockets that will take off, stop in mid air at a low altitude then begin comming down gently.

Did you see nasa experimenting from orbit? Taking things there then leting them fall at a superior speed? No, because the speed of the object would make it unstable. The LEM had 7 tones, it had a sped while it came down from orbit at 100 meters per second.

How much do you think that object weights and what speed does it have?

Even controled in an enviorment where the craft does not have speed
and flys at a very low altitude for a shorter period stuff will happen.

Three of the five test vehicles crashed, one of them right before going to the moon, Armstrong ejected.

That is statistics for you.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   
We didn't go to the moon.

NASA's astronauts did.

With that being the case...tell me how so many of you are able to make silly comments on "what you expect" things to do/act within such a low gravity that is alien to your own perspectives of such things around you?

Half the retorts in favor of "we didn't go to the moon" are badly crafted and based on simple misunderstandings on sound, light, gravity and physics as a whole.

Yknow...you all should be paying Phage for educating you. Since it is obvious he is providing you with the information your highschool science teachers failed to deliver to you.

Sigh...so bad...so "uneducated" in simpler matters of things like "how things should appear or land in 'almost' zero gravity" and "the importance of study on these matters".

Its so sad that 90% of the crap being said here "to prove a conspiracy" have been debunked and reduced to "stupidity" a thousand times over...and yet...we still have all these "self-educated free-thinkers" sharing "fisher-price-my-first-observations" on the most simple of points.

Wow...so many of you are obtaining free lessons in "basic physics" from our good poster Phage...and yet you still confront him like HE is the misled idiot.

Sad days indeed.

Again, Phage...you have so quickly earned mine (and many others) respect with all you do.

I can only imagine the complexity of your "condition" that drives you to "inform" folks who are just "out of their mind" or "too lazy to debunk their own baseless ideas" on what they "assume to be physical law".

All love and respect to you sir...you are a Knight among fools and misguided curs.

I just do not see how you can do it...you must have the motivation of a saint.

Peace.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 

How does speed make something unstable?

But you're right about the difficulty in testing a system like this on Earth. The velocity of an Earth orbit is much greater than a lunar orbit. You have to worry about the heat generated by re-entering the atmosphere. Since gravity on Earth is 6 times that of the Moon, it would take more thrust and fuel to accomplish a landing.

These are some of the reasons the LM was never tested on Earth. It wouldn't work on Earth but it worked just fine on the Moon, six times out of six.

LLRV no.1 crashed when there was a mechanical failure in the steering jet system, forcing Armstrong to eject. The other two failures were also a result of technical problems in the very new fly-by-wire system. There were more than 100 successful flights of the LLRV.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   


How does speed make something unstable?

One turn can mean a fatal mistake, just a little push at that speed.
Moving around slow or falling down slow is something else.
Why is docking done in slow motion? Because it's safer?
Why do planes slow down before they act like the lem on the moon?

Imagine getting a hold of the controls at that speed and landig it safe, hey it's the moon adventures.At that speed just a single left or right tilt of the crew in the lem and it will start to spin. What comes down at a higher speed will turn faster because the speed of the object and gravity, if it's in motion it will add to the mass of the body depending on the speed of the object. Imagine being upside down, just one wrong move how are you going to flpi it back up. This is why tests here on earth are done in such way, because the technology is still experimental. It's why NASA is experimenting with it because they don't know how to make it work.









But you're right about the difficulty in testing a system like this on Earth. The velocity of an Earth orbit is much greater than a lunar orbit. You have to worry about the heat generated by re-entering the atmosphere.

You can have a heatshield that is not a problem for tests, capsules are doing fine.



Since gravity on Earth is 6 times that of the Moon, it would take more thrust and fuel to accomplish a landing.

Not true, air resistance makes a big difference, it will keep a plane up in the air won't it? Something on Earth will fall slower due to air resistance, it should be easyer than on the moon, gravity is just a part of the equation.
It's just like in the water, gravity is also present in the water but you will move slower. Water-surface is just like Moon-Earth. If you push an object in zero gravity it will go faster than on earth, there is no resistance.





These are some of the reasons the LM was never tested on Earth. It wouldn't work on Earth but it worked just fine on the Moon, six times out of six.

It would not work on Earth because it would not work on the moon either.
It's something that can not work at all.




LLRV no.1 crashed when there was a mechanical failure in the steering jet system, forcing Armstrong to eject. The other two failures were also a result of technical problems in the very new fly-by-wire system. There were more than 100 successful flights of the LLRV.

LLRV is not the LEM I told you, and please do notice the speed of the LLRV when it comes down.


Because this things are still experimental and work at reduced speeds for tests to prevent crashing it should tell you something. But if you insist this is possible all you got to do is show a video from youtube where what you are saying is true.
Good luck finding it, because I know such things don't exist.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 

Speed does not cause instability. Yes, in an atmosphere there can be aerodynamic instability but there was no atmosphere. What "fatal mistake" can happen with 60 miles of vacuum beneath you?

As the LM descended it also slowed down using its rocket engine and control jets. By the time it got close to landing it was moving slowly. It didn't just plummet to the surface then try to hit the brakes.
apollo.spaceborn.dk...

You were the one who mentioned the LLRV crashes as if they had something to do with controlability problems. They did not, they were technical issues.

The engine of the LM was not powerful enough to use in Earth gravity. It could not be tested on Earth.

[edit on 11/18/2009 by Phage]



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Would those 60 miles of vacuum not make things MORE fatal & dangerous? Does objects not move more freely around in vacuum, such as even a small motion being able to make an object tilt around without control? As an example the famous "waving flag" on the moon , if that happened with a flag, I can imagine how cautious one would have to be with a whole space craft such as the LM. It does look extremely poorly designed for flying anywhere and certainly do not look like a craft with much stability or ability to keep balance well in such environments.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by IX-777
 


Are you talking about maneuvering in a vacuum and a low gravity situation, or flying?

I don't think wind drag and lift were a problem on the moon.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by IX-777
 


With no aerodynamic forces nothing can be "unstable". Now you're claiming that the astronauts were not good enough pilots to fly their own craft? There was also a good deal of computer control.

[edit on 11/18/2009 by Phage]



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 

Here is a description of the descent;

The LM powered descent maneuver will be initiated at the 50,000-foot altitude point of the descent orbit and approximately 14 ° prior to the landing site. This maneuver will consist of a braking phase, an approach phase, and a landing phase. The braking phase will use maximum thrust from the DPS for most of this phase to reduce the LM's orbital velocity. The LM will be rotated to a windows-up attitude at an altitude of 45,000 feet. The use of the landlng radar can begin at an altitude of about 39,000 feet, as depicted in Figure 16. The approach phase, as shown in Figure 17, will
begin at approximately 7600 feet (high gate) from the lunar surface. Vehicle
attitudes during this phase will permit crew visibility of the landing area through the forward window. The crew can redesignate to an improved lunar surface area in the event the targeted landing point appears excessively rough. The landing phase will begin at an altitude of 500 feet (low gate) and has been designed to provide continued visual assessment of the landing site. The crew will take control of the spacecraft attitude and make minor adjustments as required in the rate of descent during this period.

The vertical descent portion of the landing phase will start at an altitude of 125 feet and continue at a rate of 3 fps until the probes on the foot pads of the LM contact the lunar surface. The CDR will cut off the descent engine within 1 second after the probes, which extend 68 inches beyond the LM footpad, contact the lunar surface although the descent engine can be left on until the footpads contact the lunar surface. The lunar surface contact sequence is shown in Figure 18.

history.nasa.gov...



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Wait a minute – if the moon landings were faked then you’d better tell those other ATSers who insist that when our boys were on the moon they saw alien spaces ships. Either they have to go or you do ‘cause you can’t have your cake and eat it too (i.e. you can’t eat your cake twice).



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 


Wow, you show a total lack of knowledge of the RCS.

The Reaction Control System is what kept them from rotating out of control using translation thrusters (horizontal stabilizers) for "balance". They used the RCS to keep the bottom of the LM pointed towards the Moon so they could use the vertical thrusters to slow them down.

You claim that "any small movement can make them go out of control" but you are completely ignorant to the opposite statement that "any small movement can keep them in control", and that is what the RCS is for.

[edit on 18-11-2009 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by bowlbyville
(i.e. you can’t eat your cake twice).


Well...you can...its just then you will be eating vomit.

But...I guess that thought leads us closer to what we are doing in taking either side of that debate serious.

Heh...I made myself giggle.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   


Speed does not cause instability. Yes, in an atmosphere there can be aerodynamic instability but there was no atmosphere. What "fatal mistake" can happen with 60 miles of vacuum beneath you?

Speed does cause instability because speed + gravity= mass.

The more speed it has the more heavier it becomes because of it's kinetic energy. Once it gets heavier it's harder to manuver, it can spin out of direction easyer.

Example, you sit and you hit a train, the train is not moving but you hit it going in front of you. What if the train was moving, the impact force would me much greater.

That is why NASA is doing research at minimum speed.
At free fall from orbit the object picks up mass, think of it this way, if a kilogram of anything would hit a weighting scale falling at free speed it would be heavier than a kilogram. Just like when you sit on it, it go's above a little over your weight then it go's back to normal, that is your mass of movement that adds to your weight.
There is no way 7 tones falling from orbit can somehow land safe with people inside it on the moon. It's a fantasy.

This is why the LEM is a hoax.
To show you why it's impossible take a look at this vid 24 meeters per second at landing point all this after it glided with a parachute, the drone is no where compared in weight to the LEM.

Take a good look at this vid parachute + thrusters.


Take notice of the Martian enviorment. Gravity there is 38% of earths gravity.








As the LM descended it also slowed down using its rocket engine and control jets. By the time it got close to landing it was moving slowly. It didn't just plummet to the surface then try to hit the brakes.
apollo.spaceborn.dk...

The drone from mars used a parachute.




The engine of the LM was not powerful enough to use in Earth gravity. It could not be tested on Earth.

Bingo, the force needed for the moon would of been greater.



[edit on 18-11-2009 by pepsi78]



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
reply to post by pepsi78
 


Wow, you show a total lack of knowledge of the RCS.

The Reaction Control System is what kept them from rotating out of control using translation thrusters (horizontal stabilizers) for "balance". They used the RCS to keep the bottom of the LM pointed towards the Moon so they could use the vertical thrusters to slow them down.

You claim that "any small movement can make them go out of control" but you are completely ignorant to the opposite statement that "any small movement can keep them in control", and that is what the RCS is for.

[edit on 18-11-2009 by ALLis0NE]


It had small tiny thrusters to control the way it's comming down.
If you moved left or right in the cabin it would swing and flip.

Small movment by manual control at that speed in a flying brick?
Dude be serios, any extra push would be fatal.

I like the part where they lose control of the lem but some how they manage to get it back up
by stearing it from the joystick.

Moon adventures



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 

The LM was not falling, the rocket engine was firing, slowing it down.

Yes, on Mars there is an atmosphere. A parachute works on Mars it does not work on the Moon. That is why they used a rocket to slow down.

On Earth the fully loaded LM weighed 32,000 pounds. On the Moon it weighed 5,333 pounds because of the reduced gravity. Actually, by the time it landed it weighed less than that because almost all of the 18,000 pounds of fuel in the descent stage had been burned on the way down. See the difference?

The engine on the descent stage could produce 9,870 pounds of thrust. See the problem? On the Moon the engine produced more thrust than the weight of the craft. On the Moon the LM could hover and even gain altitude if necessary. On Earth it could not.


Speed + gravity = mass? Please provide a source for that equation. You've now entered the realm of bonehead arguments. I'm done.



[edit on 11/18/2009 by Phage]



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78

Speed does cause instability because speed + gravity= mass.

The more speed it has the more heavier it becomes because of it's kinetic energy. Once it gets heavier it's harder to manuver, it can spin out of direction easyer.



You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. You claim it's harder to maneuver but then you lose contact with logic and say it can spin out of direction more easy..


More speed means more momentum. Momentum = stability. That is how gyros work, their angular momentum gives them stability.

It's like a bike or motorcycle... the faster you go the more stable you are, the slower you go the less stable you are..
duh!

Are you completely ignorant to the fact that "an object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by an outside force"?? In zero gravity if you push something it will go the direction you pushed it until an outside force acts on it. If you stabilize something in zero gravity, it will stay stabilized until acted upon by an outside force.

The lunar module was positioned perfectly in zero gravity, an had a controlled descent. I don't think you have any clue, or any knowledge of just how easy the math is. I don't even think you watched the entire landing video.



Listen carefully, and you will hear constant pitch and yaw corrections being made. The lunar module came in sideways at an angle and used their thrusters to slow them down. When their forward speed was close to nothing at 40,000 feet they turned the module upright to control the downward descent. An object in motion stays in motion..... the only outside force was gravity from the moon, and their thrusters.

All of it is 100% possible and I don't see why you are even trying to argue the point. It is possible on Earth, and even easier on the Moon.



Originally posted by pepsi78
At free fall from orbit the object picks up mass


They were not free falling! It was a controlled descent the entire time.


Originally posted by pepsi78
There is no way 7 tones falling from orbit can somehow land safe with people inside it on the moon. It's a fantasy.


You definitely need to go back to a physics class. They were not "free" falling, it was a "controlled" fall. They were slowing down the entire time. Did you even watch the landing video? They call out their altitude and their rate of descent on the radio constantly, you should listen.



Originally posted by pepsi78
To show you why it's impossible take a look at this vid 24 meeters per second at landing point all this after it glided with a parachute, the drone is no where compared in weight to the LEM.

Take a good look at this vid parachute + thrusters.

Take notice of the Martian enviorment. Gravity there is 38% of earths gravity.


That is a horrible example. The Moon has way less gravity than Mars.

Earth's Gravitational Acceleration = 9.81 metres per second.
Mars' Gravitational Acceleration = 3.73 metres per second.
Moon's Gravitational Acceleration = 1.6 metres per second.



Originally posted by pepsi78
The drone from mars used a parachute.


The reason for parachutes is to cut the weight down. More fuel means more weight. They COULD use thrusters all the way down like Apollo, but why would they do that when Mars has an atmosphere and they could use parachutes AND cut the weight? Parachutes can only withstand a certain amount of speed and weight so they had to design them so they only slow it down without breaking, that is why they still needed thrusters.




Originally posted by pepsi78

Originally posted by Phage
The engine of the LM was not powerful enough to use in Earth gravity. It could not be tested on Earth.

Bingo, the force needed for the moon would of been greater.


Wow you are so clueless! The Moon has less gravity! It would NOT be greater. Go back to school.

---

p.s. When you burn fuel, you loose weight. Keep that in mind.

[edit on 18-11-2009 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 11:39 PM
link   



Yes, on Mars there is an atmosphere. A parachute works on Mars it does not work on the Moon. That is why they used a rocket to slow down.

That was my point, it also used thrusters and with all that it needed a inflatable protective raft suronding it.




On Earth the fully loaded LM weighed 32,000 pounds. On the Moon it weighed 5,333 pounds because of the reduced gravity. Actually, by the time it landed it weighed less than that because almost all of the 18,000 pounds of fuel in the descent stage had been burned on the way down. See the difference?

What are you talking about, 14116 LBS. is empty with no crew with no fuel at all and your talking about 18.000 lbs






See the problem? On the Moon the engine produced more thrust than the weight of the craft.

On the Moon the LM could hover and even gain altitude if necessary. On Earth it could not.

Same on Mars , the gravity is a bit higher but just by a little the drone needed a parachute and thrusters and the impact was at 45 mph.




Speed + gravity = mass? Please provide a source for that equation. You've now entered the realm of bonehead arguments. I'm done.

It's the mass of the moving object, it's simple, drop a ciment bag of 50 kilos from one meeter and you will see it takes more force to hold it from falling down as you were carying it normal. Objects at free fall speed all fall the same regardless of weight, but once aplying equal force in free fall
to those objects the one heavier will fall faster then the ligher one.

In other words 7 tones will fall the same as 1 tone at free falling speed. But stoping it from free fall and aplying equal force to them 7 tones will fall faster than 1 tone because of it's mass in weight.


The drone that you see in that video is much lighter in weight tho it needs a parachute, thrusters and an inflatable raft to keep it safe when it lands.

The LEM has around 7 tones, now I don't know what the mass for 7 tones is it depends on it's movment speed but it's a cumulative factor as it picks up speed it has more force that is kinetic energy. Simply explained if the lem let's say is traveling at twice it's weight it will be twice as hard to stop it, you would need twice the power. More falling speed more power.

You are calculating as it were standing still, but it's not it's falling.

To stop something from falling you need to aplly force.
So if it were standing still you would need less force to keep it still, if it's falling down at lets say 30% X it's weight then you need aditional 30% force just to stop it then cut the 30% to hold it still otherwise you would be lifting the object up. If an object is falling constantly then more power is reqierd to equal the force of the object.


This is what soldiers in Iraq were doing, falling from bullets, so if you could stop a bulet it would knock you down. That is what the anti bullet vests were for, the impact was so strong that it was just like a person near you that would push you down and the bulet is so small, same for the drone on mars, this is why it needed a parachute and thrusters, same for the lem that is heavier than a bulet and havier than the drone on mars.


I don't know it's maximum entry speed but if a drone needs a parachute and thrusters plus an inflatable raft then the LEM I bet was falling down very fast.














[edit on 11/18/2009 by Phage]



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


Let me ask you something?
Did presure exist in the lem once they landed and opened the door?
You know so you can like take your lemet and gloves off?
How do you change the film if you do not take your gloves off?





[edit on 18-11-2009 by pepsi78]




top topics



 
47
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join