It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I started with the technical problems NASA faced in outer space. In fact, I discovered there are two separate zones out there, an inner space and an outer space, and that fact eventually became very significant in my research.
It appears that humans are most likely operating in inner space (the space lab) but outer space, beyond the Van Allen radiation belt, the magnetosphere, 560 miles up, may be too deadly to enter due to solar radiation. If that data proves to be true, Earthmen could not have gone to the moon and returned without some signs of radiation poisoning, cell damage and DNA alteration, and most likely, death from cancer.
The first concern I faced when I started to write the book was my own public credibility. After all, I was the person who told the country (Votescam) that their votes were being rigged by a cartel of powerful elite, including the owners of major media in America.
Now I found myself investigating the possibility that we didn't go to the moon. "You've got to be nuts," said my friends. "First you told them the vote is rigged and now you question whether we went to the moon!? They'll hang you Times Square!"
A giant pedal for mankind?
It is the future, and American astronauts have again landed on the moon. Emerging from their spacecraft, they perform such familiar chores as setting up a TV camera, placing various scientific instruments around their landing site, and collecting rocks and samples of the dusty lunar soil. Then they return to the ship to prepare for more far-ranging exploration. When the spacecraft's big hatch reopens, the astronauts scoot out, pedaling away as if they were on bicycles.
A bike on the moon? Yes, says M.I.T.
Mechanical Engineer David Gordon Wilson, who insists human-powered transportation, as he calls it, is really the only way to go on a moon mission. Adds Wilson: "Such a vehicle offers lunar explorers convenience, reliability, independence of energy supplies and beneficial physiological effects."
Read more: www.time.com...
Wilson, co-author of the book Bicycling Science, is admittedly something of a bike nut. He pedals to class rain or shine. Even before Project Apollo was on the launchpad, he tried vainly to persuade NASA to include a pedal-powered vehicle. But the space agency opted instead for its $38 million, battery-driven lunar rover, a two-man vehicle that took up valuable payload capacity.
Unfazed by NASA's skepticism, Wilson is peddling his idea again. Writing in the magazine Galileo, he calculates that in the lunar environment, with its low gravity (only one-sixth that of earth's) and virtual lack of atmosphere, even an astronaut weighted with life-support equipment could easily achieve speeds in excess of 30 kph (19 m.p.h.) aboard an appropriately designed lunar bike
In the late 1960′s we were this close to motorcycling on the moon, which might be the most awesome thing you can do on two wheels. Built as an alternate to the Lunar Rover (LRV), NASA wasn’t entirely confident that Boeing would have the LRV ready for the Apollo 15 mission, and explored using a two-wheeled vehicle instead for helping astronauts bound around in the Palus Putredinus. As we know from history, the LRV was built in time for Apollo 15 and its subsequent missions, thus the Lunar Motorbike was never used.
Pictured here in the Vomit Comet,
a special purpose KC-135 airplane that undulates in the air and simulates zero-g and low-g environments, the Lunar Motorbike looks to be a very simple and to the point two-wheeler. Not much is known about the vehicle as it was scrapped after the Apollo 15 mission.
From what information we can find, the Lunar Motorbike has two pneumatic tires, and was extremely light. There is some speculation that the Lunar Motorbike was planned to be used in the Apollo 20 mission, but since that mission was ultimately cancelled it never came to fruition.
4) Was the 10-foot Rover too long to fit into the 5-foot side of the LM? Collier challenges NASA to disprove the above in a public demonstration to American taxpayers!
]This investigation and that of others, including investigator Bill Kaysing,
who is now suing Astronaut James Lovell for slander (jury trial, Santa Cruz, Ca., Oct. 7th), cannot be ignored.
In 1997, Kaysing filed a lawsuit against astronaut Jim Lovell for libel when Lovell called Kaysing's claims "wacky" in the San José Metro News, July 25-31, 1996.
The guy is wacky. His position makes me feel angry. We spent a lot of time getting ready to go to the moon. We spent a lot of money, we took great risks, and it's something everyone in this country should be proud of. — James Lovell
The case was dismissed in 1999 (Plait 2002:173) following the granting of a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by San Francisco attorney John Hardy, representing James Lovell. The judgment was affirmed on appeal on First Amendment grounds.
NASA used Cargomasters to drop-test early space capsules and to transport a variety of space products. A comparison of several aircraft (fixed and rotary wing) relative to their use as carriers for command module air-drop tests was made. To meet the test criteria established by the Apollo mechanical systems group, an air-drop vehicle must be capable of achieving a minimum altitude of 20,000 ft (almost 4 miles). In January 1963 a preliminary contract change proposal (CCP) was submitted to NASA for modification, maintenance, operation, and support of a C-133A aircraft for use in parachute subsystem testing on the Apollo earth landing system. In April 1962 NASA was negotiating with Northrop-Ventura (formerly Radioplane) and Douglas Aircraft Comapny for modification of the C-133A Aircraft. Attempts were being made to obtain the aircraft by bailment. Douglas was to provide the C-133A not later than 1 September 1962 in order to modify it and turn it over to Northrop-Ventura by 15 October 1962.
On 30 October 1967 a parachute test (Apollo Drop Test 84-1) failed at EI Centro, Calif. The parachute test vehicle (PTV) was dropped from a C-133A aircraft at an altitude of 9,144 meters to test a new 5-meter drogue chute and to investigate late deployment of one of the three main chutes. Launch and drogue chute deployment occurred as planned, but about 1.5 seconds later both drogue chutes prematurely disconnected from the PTV. A backup emergency drogue chute installed in the test vehicle and designed to be deployed by ground command in the event of drogue chute failure also failed to operate. The PTV fell for about 43 seconds before the main chutes were deployed. Dynamic pressure at the time of chute deployment was estimated at about 1.2 newtons per square centimeter (1.7 pounds per square inch). All parachutes failed at or shortly after main parachute line stretch. The PTV struck the ground in the drop zone and was buried about 1.5 meters.
Thanks for the straight answer. I appreciate the neutrality in your response. I had always thought it was to protect sensitive instruments from solar or other radiation.
Originally posted by nataylor
Because the descent engine generated a lot of thermal radiation, and damaging the landing gear before touching down would be bad.
Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
For what technical reason was gold foil necessary on the A11 lander foot pad?
Originally posted by weedwhacker
It was not "foil", per se...it was mylar..."aluminized" to be reflective. Actually, VERY innovative, for its day. QUITE commonplace, now. We see it everywhere....in mayonnaise packaging, to colorful helium-filled balloons at Disneyland....
Originally posted by nataylor
Actually, the gold-colored "foil" is most likely Kapton film. The Mylar tended to be used under the Kapton, or, in the case of the lunar module ascent stage, under the thermal panels and above the micrometeorite shielding. They also used nickel-plated KEL-F film in places.
Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
So, if I am stating this correctly, what I referred to as "gold foil" was actually "gold colored" aluminized Kapton used 1) to protect the landing foot pads from the descent thruster and 2) infrared shielding from direct sunlight. That sounds reasonable enough. I always wondered why they didn't cover everything in sheets of "gold foil"! LOL.
No Bottom rockets
Lack of smoke
Shadow issues of the LM
No soil disturbance
Lighting issues shadow side of the LM