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.

 

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

page: 106
377
<< 103  104  105    107  108  109 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by zvezdar
reply to post by FoosM
 


I already dealt with most of that in a previous post, which you obviously didnt read.

I gave you a link in that post to NASA's data service where you can find all the data you like. Feel free to go look at it, there are thousands of US and Soviet documents on there with all the data you want. If a document you want isnt online, simply request it from NASA.

As for your assertion regarding the Soviet program and their supposed man-hours lead in space exploration, you've already been shown to be wrong. Bringing up the current statistics mean nothing; what is your point? All you do is bring up random facts and laugh at people without being able to put a coherent argument together.

-----------
Where was I wrong? Tell me or take it back.
Besides confusing days with hours


zvezdar:
You dont seem to understand that not continuing to go to the moon has nothing to do with technological limitations, its due to cost-benefit.
-------------
So what you are saying is that technology in the 1960's costs more or the same in the 21st century? That our progress has not made 1960's technology any cheaper?


zvezdar:
There is a limited amount of money for space programs, and so you prioritise based on cost-benefit. Revisiting the moon has not been a priority over the past 25 years has not been a priority, because we have been there and can use unmanned craft to collect data if required.

The focus has obviously been on space stations and developing a long-term human prescence in space, not going to the moon. Space platforms are the next step towards having human exploration of deep space.

Again this is something thats pretty obvious; why would NASA simply repeat the Apollo missions without having a new mission to fulfill? We will revisit the moon once it is necessary for a larger mission, for example if a moon base is to be established on the way to human exploration of other planets.
----------------
Short memories we all have here:



President George W. Bush originally offered the proposal[20] as a way to "establish an extended human presence on the Moon" to "vastly reduce the costs of further space exploration." Inclusive to this would be the "harvesting and processing of lunar soil into rocket fuel or breathable air." According to Bush, experience gained could help "develop and test new approaches and technologies and systems" to begin a "sustainable course of long-term exploration."




NASA has estimated that the Constellation program would cost over $97 billion (in 2008 dollars) through 2020, half of which would be for Ares I and Orion. However, unsolved technical and design challenges made it impossible for NASA to provide a credible estimate


Technical difficulties? Ohhh poor NASA, where are those Gung-ho astronauts that throw caution to the wind for the privilege to be the first? Technical issues, fix it on the way there boys! Bring enough velcro with scotch tape with you



zvezdar:
When people talk about NASA being unable to replicate Apollo, its simply because the factories and production centres are no longer tooled for Apollo. Hence NASA would need to 'start again' to get to the moon in terms of being able to build and fund the missions.
-------------
Oh is that right, so NASA just threw away all Apollo technology? Oh wait, they lost the original blue prints, etc right

But seriously, you are telling NASA was not planning to re-use their technology?



The Orion command ship closely resembles the Apollo Command/Service Module in its aerodynamic shape. NASA administrator Michael D. Griffin has described the capsule as "Apollo on steroids," and the New Scientist magazine reports that "some critics... say the whole Orion program is little more than a throwback to Apollo-era technology."[10] In other respects, however—including its cockpit displays and its heatshield—Orion would be employing new technology.[11] More closely based on Apollo designs is the upper stage of the Ares I, the launch vehicle designed to take Orion into orbit. It would be based on a J-2X engine, a redesigned version of the J-2 engine used in the Saturn family of boosters. In working on the J-2X, NASA engineers have visited museums, searched for Apollo-era documentation and consulted with engineers who worked on the Apollo program. "The mechanics of landing on the moon and getting off the moon to a large extent have been solved," said Constellation program manager Jeff Hanley. "That is the legacy that Apollo gave us."


"NASA engineers have visited museums..."


So whats the hold up? What are the technical issues they are having?
What did you say before?



I gave you a link in that post to NASA's data service where you can find all the data you like. Feel free to go look at it, there are thousands of US and Soviet documents on there with all the data you want. If a document you want isnt online, simply request it from NASA.


Tell that to those engineers



zvezdar:
PS: if its so impossible, how come so many countries want to go to the moon and Mars? shouldnt the "radiation" make it impossible now acording to your beliefs?
------------------
Wanting to go, and being able to go are two different things now aren't they


Plus, maybe those nations figured out how easy its to swindle billions from their citizens

oh wait




posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Where was I wrong? Tell me or take it back. Besides confusing days with hours


I'm sorry, I had to stop here, because coffee was comin outa my nose..

Um, maybe if you posted more smilie faces, your stuff will get even better, FoosM?


Can I also remind you of a few basic writing tips:

1. Get to the point.

2. Keep it brief.

3. If you quote, explain why you are doing so, make it relevant, cite your sources, and be prepared to be taken down if you quote out of context.

4. Opinions on the Interweb are worth exactly what you pay for them, so stick to facts and figures and try to stay ontopic.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by FoosM
Where was I wrong? Tell me or take it back. Besides confusing days with hours


I'm sorry, I had to stop here, because coffee was comin outa my nose..


Well that sounds like a personal problem.
But you fail in showing where I was wrong.
So take it back and admit YOU are wrong.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


It would be better if you could establish a causal link between man-hours spent in space and the ability to reach the Moon. What you have been offering is rhetoric. It's as if someone claimed that it was impossible for someone to drive from Melbourne to Sydney because they had only just got their Learner's Permit and hadn't been driving long enough. A parent might make that argument in order to forbid it, but it doesn't render it physically impossible.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   

"NASA engineers have visited museums..."


If someone commissioned you to build a reproduction WWI bi-plane, where would the first place you would go be?



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Komodo
 



you didn't read the wiki link i see .. wow.. derp


And neither did you, apparently:


A satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminium in an elliptic orbit (200 by 20,000 miles) passing through the radiation belts will receive about 2,500 rem (25 Sv) per year. Almost all radiation will be received while passing the inner belt. [12]


2,500 rems/year= 6.85 rems/day

(Or did you simply not understand it?)


"Dr. Frank Greening is quoted as saying Dose Equivalent rate of electrons in the heart of the VA BELT is 280,000 rads a day. So about 3 rads a second. "

Whats your source?



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



"Dr. Frank Greening is quoted as saying Dose Equivalent rate of electrons in the heart of the VA BELT is 280,000 rads a day. So about 3 rads a second. "

Whats your source?


The wikipedia article that Komodo thought supported his case, obviously. Dr. Frank Greening is in the 911 conspiracy industry, not geo-physics, astronomy or space science. (I'm implying that he lies for a living.)



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 


It would be better if you could establish a causal link between man-hours spent in space and the ability to reach the Moon. What you have been offering is rhetoric. It's as if someone claimed that it was impossible for someone to drive from Melbourne to Sydney because they had only just got their Learner's Permit and hadn't been driving long enough. A parent might make that argument in order to forbid it, but it doesn't render it physically impossible.


I made it very clear in several posts now.
The number of man hours in space prior Apollo was paltry and unbelievable for a return flight to the moon.

The US, USSR, and even EUROPE have thousands of more hours and experience in space and still have problems getting to the moon.


Originally posted by DJW001

"NASA engineers have visited museums..."


If someone commissioned you to build a reproduction WWI bi-plane, where would the first place you would go be?


So now your saying NASA engineers must reproduce Apollo spacecraft in order to make a trip to the moon and back?

C'mon, just between you and me, you know they just dont know what they are doing.
They are confused. The facts in front of them tell them going to the moon is near impossible, but the poor basterds assume Apollo astronauts actually landed and came back from the moon so it must be possible.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



"Dr. Frank Greening is quoted as saying Dose Equivalent rate of electrons in the heart of the VA BELT is 280,000 rads a day. So about 3 rads a second. "

Whats your source?


The wikipedia article that Komodo thought supported his case, obviously. Dr. Frank Greening is in the 911 conspiracy industry, not geo-physics, astronomy or space science. (I'm implying that he lies for a living.)


You have evidence of this?


jra

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
So what you are saying is that technology in the 1960's costs more or the same in the 21st century? That our progress has not made 1960's technology any cheaper?


21st century tech is better, but not necessarily cheaper. And no one uses 1960's tech anymore, especially for spaceflight, so it being cheaper is irrelevant


Technical difficulties?


Yes, technical difficulties with the design of the Ares 1 rocket mostly. The design was turning out to be more underpowered than what the original plan called for. This was in turn causing problems for Lockheed, who were designing the Orion spacecraft.

But this IS rocket science after all. No one ever said it was easy...


Ohhh poor NASA, where are those Gung-ho astronauts that throw caution to the wind for the privilege to be the first?


The safety culture at NASA today is extremely different then what it was during the 60's, if you hadn't noticed...


Oh is that right, so NASA just threw away all Apollo technology? Oh wait, they lost the original blue prints, etc right

But seriously, you are telling NASA was not planning to re-use their technology?


The Apollo tech was only being used as a reference for how things were done. Construction methods are much different today, plus there are materials available now that weren't back then.

As for the Apollo blueprints, they still exist on microfilm.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 12:50 PM
link   
I tried to explain this to you before FoosM.
Technology doesnt advance uniformly across all fields.
Yes, we can build better computers now than in the 80ies. Can we build better doors than in the 80ies? What would be more practical to you? A 70ies car, a 70ies shovel, or a 70ies mobile phone?



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by debunky
I tried to explain this to you before FoosM.
Technology doesnt advance uniformly across all fields.
Yes, we can build better computers now than in the 80ies. Can we build better doors than in the 80ies? What would be more practical to you? A 70ies car, a 70ies shovel, or a 70ies mobile phone?


Your reaching debunky, you have no leg to stand on.
Your mind is trying to speculate on things that have no bearing on the insurmountable
fact that man has not landed on the moon.

I know the battering that you all are taking is taking its toll. We are coming from all kinds of angles. Poking reality holes in the fantasy called Apollo.

Ill leave you with this the look of shame:


or fear:



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Its almost over...




Boldly going nowhere: Nasa ends plan to put man back on Moon

Nasa has begun to wind down construction of the rockets and spacecraft that were to have taken astronauts back to the Moon — effectively dismantling the US human spaceflight programme despite a congressional ban on its doing so.

Constellation aimed to build upon what was arguably America’s greatest technological achievement, the first lunar landing of 1969, by launching new expeditions to the Moon and to Mars and worlds beyond. Mr Obama proposed in February that it should be scrapped because it was “over budget, behind schedule and lacking in innovation”

The head of Nasa, Major-General Charlie Bolden — an Obama appointee — has now written to aerospace contractors telling them to cut back immediately on Constellation-related projects costing almost $1 billion (£690 million), to comply with regulations requiring them to budget for possible contract termination costs.

Constellation was born in 2004 from President George W. Bush’s vision for returning Americans to the Moon by 2020 and using it as a base to build the knowledge and technologies for a manned mission to Mars by 2030. Since then, more than $9 billion has been spent on designing and building the necessary space vehicles.

An independent review panel appointed by Mr Obama last year concluded, however, that without an extra $3 billion a year Constellation was on an “unsustainable trajectory”. In his proposed budget for the 2011 fiscal year, unveiled in February, Mr Obama made it clear that there would be no extra money for its continuation. The proposal has yet to clear Congress.


www.timesonline.co.uk...

I expect the truth behind Apollo slowly start to seep out publicly.

Was it really a money issue?
Come on, no.

Compare going to the moon to going to afghanistan:



President Barack Obama's request in February for more money to pay for the war in Afghanistan is still snarled in Congress as lawmakers work on other priorities and deal with scarce budget resources.
Obama has asked for $33 billion more to help fund 30,000 extra U.S. soldiers being sent to Afghanistan this year. He wants another $4.5 billion for beefed-up foreign aid and civilian operations in Iraq and Afghanistan this year; about $2 billion of this amount is dedicated to Afghanistan.

COSTS SO FAR
Congress has approved $345 billion so far for the war in Afghanistan, where the United States invaded to fight al Qaeda and topple the Taliban after the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001. This figure is from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which says that about $22 billion has gone for Afghan-war-related activities in other countries.

www.alertnet.org...
Now let me guess, which misadventure is less popular?



COMPARISON WITH IRAQ
About twice as much money -- $708 billion -- has gone to the war in Iraq so far, CBO says.


OMG!


You Americans are being robbed into slavery.

Apollo: approximately $136 billion in 2007 Dollars in 13 years
Constellation: about $230 billion through 2025 in like 20 years
Iraq: about 708 billion through ??
Afghanistan: about 345 billion through ??

[edit on 14-6-2010 by asala]



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Your mind is trying to speculate on things that have no bearing on the insurmountable
fact that man has not landed on the moon.


You keep saying things like this, but you have yet to deliver one single piece of evidence that isn't instantly shot down. Where did the Greening quote come from, for example? What sort of data did he collect to come to that conclusion? Why can't you see that manned space exploration is a tough sell in the middle of a "tax revolt?" And please, by all means, actually prove your blithe statement that the US didn't have enough flight time to plan a mission to the Moon? Isn't quality as much of an issue as quantity? NASA made every mission count in terms of gathering environmental, medical and engineering data. They didn't just stuff some guy in a can and light a rocket off under him. Sheesh!



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by debunky
I tried to explain this to you before FoosM.
Technology doesnt advance uniformly across all fields.
Yes, we can build better computers now than in the 80ies. Can we build better doors than in the 80ies? What would be more practical to you? A 70ies car, a 70ies shovel, or a 70ies mobile phone?


Your reaching debunky, you have no leg to stand on.
Your mind is trying to speculate on things that have no bearing on the insurmountable
fact that man has not landed on the moon.

I know the battering that you all are taking is taking its toll. We are coming from all kinds of angles. Poking reality holes in the fantasy called Apollo.



Oh, I was speculating? Where?
Must have escaped my notice, that I was.

And actually, the "all kinds of angles" is the weak point.

Q: How many data points do you need to falsify a statement?
A: 1

Actually, I made a better argument for the concorde being fake, than all hoaxers combined made for apollo.
And I only lied once. (About the 14cm being calculated thing. Not aware of anybody calculating it)



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   
On the topic of the Moon Hoax Debate, I'd just like to point out that in his book A Brief History of Time by Steven Hawking, He states that as part of the NASA space program he (Dr.Steven Hawking) created a series of experiments which needed to be conducted from the moon as a point of referance. These experiments could NOT have been done on earth or in space, and the data provided from these experiments, is what gave us our current understanding of PHYSICS. So someone guessed the results of experiments? The math according to Steven Hawking all adds up so unless someones actually did these experiments then our very basic principles of PHYSICS wouldn't add up. As nicely as they do now...Dark matter omittted of course)



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Your mind is trying to speculate on things that have no bearing on the insurmountable
fact that man has not landed on the moon.


You keep saying things like this, but you have yet to deliver one single piece of evidence that isn't instantly shot down. Where did the Greening quote come from, for example? What sort of data did he collect to come to that conclusion? Why can't you see that manned space exploration is a tough sell in the middle of a "tax revolt?" And please, by all means, actually prove your blithe statement that the US didn't have enough flight time to plan a mission to the Moon? Isn't quality as much of an issue as quantity? NASA made every mission count in terms of gathering environmental, medical and engineering data. They didn't just stuff some guy in a can and light a rocket off under him. Sheesh!


1. Want Greening's quote, get it from Jarrah's video that was posted.
This thread is about JW and his videos, but you people dont even watch them. LOL.
And dont give me this, his stuff has been debunked, or you hate his voice, nonsense, your scared to watch them.

2. Tax revolt?

3. Im still waiting for that radiation data from those probes.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM


1. Want Greening's quote, get it from Jarrah's video that was posted.
This thread is about JW and his videos, but you people dont even watch them. LOL.
And dont give me this, his stuff has been debunked, or you hate his voice, nonsense, your scared to watch them.



Jarrah White has already been proven to be an out-and-out liar. How do we know this Greening person isn't another one of JWs "experts", who aren't really experts, but are pretending to be for another class project?

The truth is we don't, which is why it is impossible to use White's videos as proof of anything.

BTW, I believe Greening is a truther, but I'm not sure of his area of expertise. I think its chemistry. Why we would look to him for numbers instead of looking up the copious amounts of studies done is beyond me.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Tomblvd
 





Jarrah White has already been proven to be an out-and-out liar.


says NASA Believers, i am not going to waste my time urgeing you.



I agree with FoosM


This thread is about JW and his videos, but you people dont even watch them





[edit on 14-6-2010 by Agent_USA_Supporter]



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Just BRIEFLY... Greening posts on conspiracy forums, as 'Apollo20'. On another forum, he argued a point about oxygen consumption on Apollo being 'wrong'. He was *comprehensively* debunked and eventually (to his credit) had to admit he was *completely* wrong.

forums.randi.org...

He didn't fully admit it on that thread, but did here:

forums.randi.org...

.. his admission is tangled up in more diatribes that reveal his nature and eventually led to his banning. You'll note he also started to dabble in the VAB issue in the first thread, but quickly ran for it when he realised that there were knowledgeable people there.

All sounds rather familiar, doesn't it...

*That's* the sort of thing that FoosM should have known. In fact he probably does, but doesn't want to talk about anything that shows what these 'experts' actually are - biased, and not qualified, despite his self-proclaimed 'Dr' status.


So I think asking for a citation and supporting information is entirely appropriate.

And FoosM, you clearly need to get out more...




top topics



 
377
<< 103  104  105    107  108  109 >>

log in

join