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: 231
377
<< 228  229  230    232  233  234 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Pervius
 


I am perfectly aware of how electric motors work. I know of the "permanent" magnets in the armatures....the wire windings ALSO create electro-magnetism, when energized....THAT was my point, though. Depending on the motor's design, the wire windings are OUTSIDE and rotate, while the physical magnets are the stationary part, deep inside the armatures.

However, this is (as I pointed out already) an incorrect claim:


The Lunar Rover Direct Current motor had a steel shaft and a steel nut going to the wheel. This should have been magnetized during operation and attracted Fe-0 on the lunar surface.


Regardless of any steel components, in the axle area, they are TOO FAR from the surface!! And, I highly doubt that these components would have "been magnetized" simply because they were attached to the motors!!!

My LRV Operations Manual (pdf) shows the horizontal part of the chassis, at the same height as the attachment points of the wheel axles, at 14 inches, when loaded. Seventeen inches, empty.

The attractive forces of ANY Fe in the dust would NOT overcome gravity, and "jump" up that high to cling. But, any that DID, during the driving operations, would be minimal...and obviously, did not significantly affect the LRV functions, for the short time periods they were used. LONG term? Yes, it would likely become a problem. But, didn't matter for the few hours of operation on the EVAs.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Upon further review of the LRV Ops Manual:

(Page 15 of the pdf) "Each wheel is provided with a separate traction drive (Fig. 1-5, Sh 1) consisting of a harmonic drive reduction unit, drive motor and brake assembly. Each traction drive is hermetically sealed to maintain a 7.5 PSIA internal pressure for improved brush lubrication..."

Note my highlights......



edit on 24 October 2010 by weedwhacker because: Text




posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Pound 4 Pound



Recently I made a post called "Rock and Roll"
Where I raised questions to the actual sample amounts that the Apollo missions could have returned.
It was quite a long post, and Im sure that many had simply skimmed over it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


What I attempted to show was that the tools as well as the containers all
pointed to small samples being obtained and brought back. Not only that, I also showed that
just obtaining these samples was no easy task. In videos, you can find astronauts falling over themselves
just going after a rock or two. Now considering they had a limited time to obtain samples, take photos, set up experiments and in some cases, travel long distances, we could assume they would keep the sample collection as simple and small as possible.

In a follow up post I managed to provide NASA published numbers stating that the two containers
for their samples could hold up 40 pounds. Yet missions 14 and up all claimed to have brought
back materials above 40 pounds and a vast number of samples.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

In a post prior, I also had shown that NASA had made fake lunar dust for Apollo that at this moment they have no examples of. Where did all this regolith go? Its also well known that NASA has not offered their greater portion of lunar samples to be studied by the general public. They reuse rocks and samples, which themselves are offered in small amounts.

Detractors have wanted me to prove that the number and weight of the samples brought back
was not an issue by simply using math. However, just using math doesn't mean that it will reflect in real world situations. Secondly, the math they are using are based on general numbers, and not exact figures.

Now remember the claim is that NASA used two ALSRC (SRC) or Rock Boxes per mission.
Thats all they had. Yet Apollo proponents would have you believe that those two boxes could
increasingly hold more and more materials per mission.

From Apollo 11 50 rocks
to
Apollo 16 731 individual rock and soil samples

The most important element in a scientific investigation is observation.
And I want you to look at the following:

Here is a close-up of the rock box



Here you can see how big this box is in comparison to a man
Basically a big briefcase




Now again, the claim is that on Apollo 16 astronauts collected and
brought back 731 samples weighing in at 96 kilograms (~211 lbs)
Here is one of the boxes:




I ask you.
How many samples do you think are in that box?
Maybe no more than 20 sample bags? One rock and a core?
How much do you think those samples weigh altogether?


On A-16, it took 8 minutes to get a rake sample with soil.
It was a two-person activity... use rake to collect 1kg of rocks(-1 sample bag full)


So one sample bag holds up to 2.2 pounds.

Well its been documented that on Apollo 16
SRC-1 weighed in at 42 earth pounds (each rock box could hold up to 40 pounds, so this fits).
Which means the next SRC will have to hold up to a
staggering 689 pounds !

We got a problem here.


Stowing of package once in the LMwThe A- 11 crew weighed the rock boxes outside, but the other crews carried them directly inside. After getting the samples into the LM and repressurizing, the boxes were weighed. The A-16 crew had to do some shuffling of rocks between boxes to keep them below 45 pounds each for weight and balance concerns. They also had to report the weights to Earth and wait to see if they could bring all the samples home. If not, the excess would have been tossed onto the surface before ascent. On A-12, this scale broke due to a loose nut.


Thats both boxes below 45 pounds. That means those boxes could weigh no more than 90 pounds altogether probably including the weight of the box, sample bags and metal core as well! Because the entire box and its contents were weighed!

90 pounds is a far cry 211 pounds!


more to come.


www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
edit on 25-10-2010 by FoosM because: photo formatting



Mod Note: Please review Image Guidelines
edit on Mon 25 Oct 2010 by The Vagabond because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-10-2010 by FoosM because: photo fixing



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 04:33 AM
link   
Very cute Foos, but I'll ask you again:



Who would you find acceptable as a provider of third party proof that Apollo landed on the Moon? Whose nation's lunar probe's images would be acceptable Foos?

That is a direct question Foos, I and I expect many others expect an answer. It's not complicated Foos..


I recommend we keep asking Foos this question and refuse to answer any of his other posts until he does so.



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


So you do not want people to use math based on reasonable real world and verifiable figures, but instead you want people to make a wild guess based on just some random numbers you come with? Is that because the math does not support your nonsense and the wild guesses of some ignorant people do?



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Very cute Foos, but I'll ask you again:



Who would you find acceptable as a provider of third party proof that Apollo landed on the Moon? Whose nation's lunar probe's images would be acceptable Foos?

That is a direct question Foos, I and I expect many others expect an answer. It's not complicated Foos..


I recommend we keep asking Foos this question and refuse to answer any of his other posts until he does so.


Very cute AgentSmith, since my discussion about the rocks came before our recent conversation, and
I had stated sometime ago what would be acceptable as evidence.
Anyway, you claim to be a scientist, so you should know this.



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by FoosM
 


So you do not want people to use math based on reasonable real world and verifiable figures, but instead you want people to make a wild guess based on just some random numbers you come with? Is that because the math does not support your nonsense and the wild guesses of some ignorant people do?


The facts are stated by NASA, what sort of math do you plan to use to refute their claims?
By all means go for it.



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 06:25 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


I challenged you to do the math. I already explained how to do it. Why do you refuse to do it?

As for contradicting figures in NASA reports, even if some figures contradict (I am not wasting my time to check it out), it only proves NASA employees can make mistakes, whether the moon landings are a hoax or not. Or do you have a good argument why mistakes in reports are likely when the mission was a hoax, and not likely when the mission was real?



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pervius
When we went to the bottom of the Marianas Trench when they hit the bottom they stirred up so much silt even after 30 minutes they had no visibility and came back up seeing really nothing.

When they were running around on the moon kicking up dust and dirt with their boots it all fell back to the moon immediately. You would think in a low gravity environment (1/6th of Earths) the dust and dirt would be floating around for awhile.


You would think so right?


This new finding, announced this week by NASA, is important to future lunar explorers: Astronauts may find themselves "crackling with electricity like a sock pulled out of a hot dryer," according to an agency statement.

The effect on the moon was first noticed in 1968, when NASA's Surveyor 7 lander photographed a strange glow on the horizon after dark. Nobody knew what it was. Now scientists think it was sunlight scattered by electrically charged moon dust floating just above the surface. That fits with data from NASA's Lunar Prospector, which orbited the moon in 1998-99. During some crossings of the magnetotail, the spacecraft recorded big changes in the lunar night-side voltage


Why not with Apollo? Oh wait...


There are several accounts from Apollo crewmembers. In crew debriefs, some referred to lunar dust as being similar to sandpaper, having a “texture like graphite”, stating that the dust “immediately got into” their eyes, giving a “distinct gunpowder like scent”, having a

“cloud of fine dust floating around the lunar module”

, “throat irritation”, nasal passage irritancy, “tasting” and “eating” lunar dust particles, skin irritation from lunar dust entering gloves and spacesuits. The mission reports and accounts of the crews give us some measure of brief, episodic exposure and insight into some expected effects.


But how is that possible with no atmosphere, right?
Its possible because NASA is full of contradictions, lol.
Who knows what truly happening on the moon if we have to consider Apollo as a fact.


ntrs.nasa.gov...
www.space.com...



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
But how is that possible with no atmosphere, right?


Could it be because they pressurized the LM? How else could the even breath it if they were in their suits?

Anyway, I am out again, you can't possibly be serious here, nobody can be this stupid and still operate a computer. I have done enough feeding the troll.



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



But how is that possible with no atmosphere, right?


As pointed out earlier: inside the lunar module! I also urge people just joining this thread to go back six or so pages to read FoosM's ludicrous "Rock and Roll" post and the thorough debunking he is pretending never happened. Math! Hah! Who needs math when you can rely on a single typographical error!

edit on 25-10-2010 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct formatting.



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


I'll ask you again Foos, this is obviously a bit of a struggle for you but I'm going to keep asking you until you give the name(s):

Which country/countries or organisation's images taken by their lunar probe (past or future) would you accept as evidence of the Apollo landings? Who is trustworthy enough for you to accept their word?

Name of country/countries or organisation(s) please Foos.



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
In a follow up post I managed to provide NASA published numbers stating that the two containers
for their samples could hold up 40 pounds. Yet missions 14 and up all claimed to have brought
back materials above 40 pounds and a vast number of samples.


Sigh. Please give your source for where a hard limit of 40 pounds is put on the ALSRC. I know math is complicated, but I did show you that it could potentially hold much more than that.

But the point is moot really, as not all the samples were returned in ALSRCs. Some were put in Sample Collection Bags (SCBs) and other containers.

From here:

The ALSRC is made of aluminum with exterior dimensions of 47.5x28.75x20 cm. A strap-lash system provides the force necessary to provide a vacuum seal, but not all ALSRC's retained vacuum integrity. Padding for sample protection was provided by a York-mesh liner. These containers were used on all Apollo missions, but not all samples were returned to the Earth in
them.


The Apollo 17 Lunar Sample Information Catalog gives details of each container and sample.


Smaller samples were collected in documented bags (DB's), which are made of sheet Teflon. A DB is closed by wrapping it around aluminum strips in its lip and then folding over tabs at the ends of the strips.

Filled containers were moved to the ascent stage of the Lunar Module at the end of each EVA. Following repressurization and other activities, the SRC's and BSLSS were weighed and the SCBs were put into containment bags and weighed. The containment bag is a light duffle bag made of woven Beta cloth with a drawstring mouth. On the basis of the container weights, stowage locations to balance the spacecraft were assigned by Mission Control prior to lunar liftoff.

...

In summary, sample containers SRC 1, SRC 2, SESC and CSVC were sealed in the lunar vacuum; the SRC's were unsealed in the N2 processing lines; the SESC and CSVC were left sealed. Samples in the BSLSS and SCB's have been subject to spacecraft atmospheres from five to seven days with from two to four depressurization-repressurization cycles, to terrestrial atmosphere nine to thirteen hours on the recovery ship, and sealed in a static terrestrial atmosphere for about one and onehalf days until introduction into the LEL N2 processing and storage atmosphere. The known anomalies are the handling of 70035 with bare hands and the BSLSS resting in one-fourth inch of water for 10 hours before bagging on the recovery ship.


The SRC mention are the sealed Sample Return Containers. The SESC is the Special Environmental Sample Container, a small cylindrical container meant to preserve the vacuum. The CSVC is the Core Sample Vacuum Container, which stored the drilled rock cores. The BSLSS was Buddy Secondary Life Support System Bag, which was a bag containing extra hoses and connectors to allow one astronaut to share life support with another.

You can go ahead and add up all the weights of the samples from the inventory to see exactly how much was in the SRCs. I get 6765.067 grams (14.91 lbs) for box 1 and 9279.88 grams (20.46 lbs) for box 2. Everything else came back in other containers.



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



But how is that possible with no atmosphere, right?


As pointed out earlier: inside the lunar module! I also urge people just joining this thread to go back six or so pages to read FoosM's ludicrous "Rock and Roll" post and the thorough debunking he is pretending never happened. Math! Hah! Who needs math when you can rely on a single typographical error!

edit on 25-10-2010 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct formatting.


They dont have to go back six or seven pages because I placed links to my posts.
Secondly, my posts have not been debunked, not even close. To say so is

as a matter of fact, I have with my last post, strengthened my case.
Thanks to NASA. Also, two different sources claiming the same information is not a typo.

And yes, that dust was in the Lunar Module, but atmosphere was not what made it float! They claimed it was the ZERO G!


Bean spoke of LM ventilation, “Cabin atmosphere from activation planning was excellent. When we got back inside the first time, in one-sixth g, the atmosphere remained that way although we brought in quite a lot of dust. The same with the second time and the cabin jettison depressurization. Once we got into orbit in zero-g, there was a lot of dust and dirt floating around the cabin and we chose to remain in our suit loops as much as possible because of all this dirt, dust, and debris that was floating around.


Though on Apollo 11 Aldrin said this was not a problem (see page 27)! Another NASA contradiction!

LIFE



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



But how is that possible with no atmosphere, right?


As pointed out earlier: inside the lunar module! I also urge people just joining this thread to go back six or so pages to read FoosM's ludicrous "Rock and Roll" post and the thorough debunking he is pretending never happened. Math! Hah! Who needs math when you can rely on a single typographical error!

edit on 25-10-2010 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct formatting.


They dont have to go back six or seven pages because I placed links to my posts.
Secondly, my posts have not been debunked, not even close. To say so is

as a matter of fact, I have with my last post, strengthened my case.
Thanks to NASA. Also, two different sources claiming the same information is not a typo.

And yes, that dust was in the Lunar Module, but atmosphere was not what made it float! They claimed it was the ZERO G!


Bean spoke of LM ventilation, “Cabin atmosphere from activation planning was excellent. When we got back inside the first time, in one-sixth g, the atmosphere remained that way although we brought in quite a lot of dust. The same with the second time and the cabin jettison depressurization. Once we got into orbit in zero-g, there was a lot of dust and dirt floating around the cabin and we chose to remain in our suit loops as much as possible because of all this dirt, dust, and debris that was floating around.


Though on Apollo 11 Aldrin said this was not a problem (see page 27)! Another NASA contradiction!

LIFE


So now you try to conflate two different things. On the surface Bean says they "brought in a lot of dust" while "the atmosphere remained". That means the LM was pressurized, and there would be dust floating in the AIR.

Then, in a completely separate situation, they talk about "dirt and dust floating around the cabin" once they have lifted off from the surface of the moon "Once we got into orbit in zero-g".

On the surface, no air and 1/6 gravity: nothing to suspend the dust in, so it fall immediately to the ground.

On the surface in the pressurized LM, air and gravity: dust suspended in the air.

In the LM in orbit: air and no gravity: nothing to hold the dust down, so it floats around.


That should clarify it for you, but it won't.

BTW, I had my seventh grade daughter dictate that info to me.



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 12:50 PM
link   
And yet AGAIN as Foos can't answer this simple question for some reason:


Which country/countries or organisation's images taken by their lunar probe (past or future) would you accept as evidence of the Apollo landings? Who is trustworthy enough for you to accept their word?

Name of country/countries or organisation(s) please Foos.



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
In a follow up post I managed to provide NASA published numbers stating that the two containers
for their samples could hold up 40 pounds. Yet missions 14 and up all claimed to have brought
back materials above 40 pounds and a vast number of samples.


Sigh. Please give your source for where a hard limit of 40 pounds is put on the ALSRC. I know math is complicated, but I did show you that it could potentially hold much more than that.



Yes, exactly! Sigh....

It took you guys long enough to discover that not all lunar materials were stowed away in those two Rock Boxes.

But that opens up another can of worms:

1. Contamination: Why bring samples that risk getting contaminated? For future excuses?
2. Weight issues: Why risk the weight problem? And if they planned for more material, why not extra Rock Boxes?
3. Space issues: Where did the put the extra materials on the ascent module? How did they secure it down? Where was it stowed in the CM? How was it secured down?

As a matter of fact... where did they store the Rock Boxes on the ascent stage


I told you... there is more to come


But in the meantime, why dont you explain where and how they stored the additional 120 pounds of lunar material on Apollo 16?

( BTW, I made mistyped total Apollo figures with Apollo 16 figures in my last post)



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 02:37 PM
link   


Originally posted by Tomblvd

And yes, that dust was in the Lunar Module, but atmosphere was not what made it float! They claimed it was the ZERO G!


Bean spoke of LM ventilation, “Cabin atmosphere from activation planning was excellent. When we got back inside the first time, in one-sixth g, the atmosphere remained that way although we brought in quite a lot of dust. The same with the second time and the cabin jettison depressurization. Once we got into orbit in zero-g, there was a lot of dust and dirt floating around the cabin and we chose to remain in our suit loops as much as possible because of all this dirt, dust, and debris that was floating around.


Though on Apollo 11 Aldrin said this was not a problem (see page 27)! Another NASA contradiction!

LIFE


So now you try to conflate two different things. On the surface Bean says they "brought in a lot of dust" while "the atmosphere remained". That means the LM was pressurized, and there would be dust floating in the AIR.

Then, in a completely separate situation, they talk about "dirt and dust floating around the cabin" once they have lifted off from the surface of the moon "Once we got into orbit in zero-g".

On the surface, no air and 1/6 gravity: nothing to suspend the dust in, so it fall immediately to the ground.

On the surface in the pressurized LM, air and gravity: dust suspended in the air.

In the LM in orbit: air and no gravity: nothing to hold the dust down, so it floats around.


That should clarify it for you, but it won't.

BTW, I had my seventh grade daughter dictate that info to me.



Well then have your 7th grade daughter make arguments for you because your blind faith in Apollo is as usual making you blind to what you are reading. English is my second language and I can understand the text better than you.

He used the world ALTHOUGH. In other words, the cabin atmosphere was excellent ALTHOUGH they brought in a lot of sand and dust. Its when they went into a Zero G environment is when "a lot of dust and dirt floating around the cabin" occurred.

I understand Tom, the Apollo story is like trying to hold onto water while making a fist. But yet you keep on trying, thinking... If I just squeeze a bit harder, maybe, just maybe I will be able to hold onto the water...


edit on 25-10-2010 by FoosM because: formatting



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 02:37 PM
link   

edit on 25-10-2010 by FoosM because: dbl post



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM


Well then have your 7th grade daughter make arguments for you because your blind faith in Apollo is as usual making you blind to what you are reading. English is my second language and I can understand the text better than you.

He used the world ALTHOUGH. In other words, the cabin atmosphere was excellent ALTHOUGH they brought in a lot of sand and dust. Its when they went into a Zero G environment is when "a lot of dust and dirt floating around the cabin" occurred.

I understand Tom, the Apollo story is like trying to hold onto water while making a fist. But yet you keep on trying, thinking... If I just squeeze a bit harder, maybe, just maybe I will be able to hold onto the water...


edit on 25-10-2010 by FoosM because: formatting


Then you should sue your english teacher.

The statement "Bean spoke of LM ventilation" means they were discussing how well the cabin ventilation system removed the dust and dirt from the cabin air. And it was only when they got into orbit that they noticed it. This whole quote is discussing ventilation.

My daughter understood that, why don't you?



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Yes, exactly! Sigh....

It took you guys long enough to discover that not all lunar materials were stowed away in those two Rock Boxes.
So you knew the samples weren't all stored in the ALSRCs, but were arguing they shouldn't all be able to fit in the ALSRCs? Duh, indeed!


Originally posted by FoosMBut that opens up another can of worms:

1. Contamination: Why bring samples that risk getting contaminated? For future excuses?
2. Weight issues: Why risk the weight problem? And if they planned for more material, why not extra Rock Boxes?
3. Space issues: Where did the put the extra materials on the ascent module? How did they secure it down? Where was it stowed in the CM? How was it secured down?
They had some samples in the ALSRC, which, theoretically, would protect them from contamination. The rest were in the SCBs exactly because it offered more flexibility in stowage.




top topics



 
377
<< 228  229  230    232  233  234 >>

log in

join