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: 274
377
<< 271  272  273    275  276  277 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Here is a nice, and very detailed and pretty photo of the nose of a Space Shuttle, where you can see ITS RCS thrusters. (Of course, they are streamlined and embedded within the airframe, for aerodynamic reasons. Such as re-entry).



Deposits?? See any?? Pretty subtle, if at all, isn't it?


Well yes, I do see deposits, and no, they're not that subtle. So why do the apollo RCS thrusters look so clean compared to the shuttle, after all, they're both operating in a vacuum.



Here is another article I found the shows the levels of carbon and oxygen that can be expected from firing.



So why aren't those carbon on oxygen deposits showing like they do on the space shuttle thrusters?
Or does the vacuum change depending on the mission ?
edit on 20-12-2010 by ppk55 because: spelling




posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 



Wow ppk55, I am sure you say it once again, all under the guise of asking questions. But seriously when does a question become unrealistic?


So why aren't those carbon on oxygen deposits showing like they do on the space shuttle thrusters?
Or does the vacuum change depending on the mission ?


I really believe you have out done yourself here, you actually believe that you can SEE something that hundreds of thousands of Phd's have missed?

Ohh brother that takes the cake.


Let me show you something: Reaction Control System (RCS) thruster as used in the Apollo Service Module and Lunar Module

That is a typical thruster used on Apollo.

Another view: With damage from use, IE charring.
Apollo Command Module RCS SE-8 Nozzle, ablation/charring evident from firing


That image is about half-way down the page here: CURRENT COLLECTION OF APOLLO COMMAND SERVICE MODULE LUNAR PROGRAM SPACEFLIGHT ARTIFACTS

I think that answers your questions about charring on RCS thruster during Apollo Missions.





edit on 20-12-2010 by theability because: grammar



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


After the excellent contribution by theability already, hardly more to say....except to point out what (I thought) should have been rather obvious, in response to this question:


So why do the apollo RCS thrusters look so clean compared to the shuttle, after all, they're both operating in a vacuum.


Notwithstanding the (veiled) and inane inference, and attempted ridicule later in your post, regarding [ahem], "different vacuums?".....

When you peer at the image of the Space Shuttle, compared to the Apollo RCS nozzles....you are seeing TWO DIFFERENT SPACECRAFT, and each has had, at the time the photos were taken, DIFFERENT times in service!

The Shuttle is re-usable...and by the time of that photo, had been in operation for multiple flights. (I will have to check that image source, again, for the date of that mission, and which Shuttle it is). [**]

The Apollo hardware FLEW ONCE! It came out of the factory brand new. The RCS thrusters were hardly used.

Surely, anyone who has ever owned a brand new car, and looked under the hood, and compared to a car that's "been around the block" a few times, could have figured this out, by now

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[**]...OK, came back with that informaiton.

Space Shuttle Discovery. Photo date 3 August 2005, mission STS-114

Original NASA Photo ID: S114-E-6215. Cropped and rotated, here is the full image:spaceflight.nasa.gov...

By the time of this photo, it was Disovery's EIGHTH flight:


  • STS-41-D: First flight.
  • STS-51-D: Carried first sitting United States Member of Congress into space, Senator Jake Garn (R–UT).
  • STS-26: Return to space after Challenger disaster (STS-51-L).
  • STS-31: Launch of Hubble Space Telescope.
  • STS-60: First Russian launched in an American spacecraft (Sergei Krikalev).
  • STS-95: Second flight of John Glenn, oldest man in space and third sitting Member of Congress to enter space.
  • STS-92: The 100th Space Shuttle Mission.
  • STS-114: Return to space after Columbia disaster (STS-107).


  • en.wikipedia.org...

    So, let's keep that "NASA derision and Apollo denial" flowing, shall we? Because, each and every time, it is dead easy to explain REAL science and facts, to those who seem disinclined to bother to understand it themselves.....



    edit on 20 December 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



    posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 10:45 AM
    link   
    reply to post by ppk55
     


    ppk, do you really detect a coating of black on the black thruster surface? Setting that aside for the moment, I would like to draw everyone's attention to this wonderful YouTube video from Armadillo Aerospace:


    This video, which is not from NASA, demonstrates many things relevant to this thread, not least of which is that if a bunch of good ol' boys can do this, imagine what NASA's deep pockets can do.

    NOTE:

    1) The absence of a crater at the lift off point
    2) The absence of a crater at the touch down point
    3) The absence of charring and blackening on the module's engine and landing gear
    4) The billowing clouds of dust caused by the particles being swept upwards into the atmosphere

    Any questions?



    posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 11:12 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by theability
    reply to post by ppk55
     



    Wow ppk55, I am sure you say it once again, all under the guise of asking questions. But seriously when does a question become unrealistic?


    So why aren't those carbon on oxygen deposits showing like they do on the space shuttle thrusters?
    Or does the vacuum change depending on the mission ?


    I really believe you have out done yourself here, you actually believe that you can SEE something that hundreds of thousands of Phd's have missed?

    Ohh brother that takes the cake.


    Let me show you something: Reaction Control System (RCS) thruster as used in the Apollo Service Module and Lunar Module

    That is a typical thruster used on Apollo.

    Another view: With damage from use, IE charring.
    Apollo Command Module RCS SE-8 Nozzle, ablation/charring evident from firing


    That image is about half-way down the page here: CURRENT COLLECTION OF APOLLO COMMAND SERVICE MODULE LUNAR PROGRAM SPACEFLIGHT ARTIFACTS

    I think that answers your questions about charring on RCS thruster during Apollo Missions.




    Ummm... wait a minute.
    What mission(s) are those Apollo thrusters from?



    posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 11:19 AM
    link   
    reply to post by FoosM
     



    Another perfect example of illogical questions from Foosm.

    What mission(s) are those Apollo thrusters from?


    Anyone with any understanding of Apollo would never ask that question for they'd already be informed of the answer.

    Yet you still ask away.

    :shk:



    posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 11:20 AM
    link   
    reply to post by FoosM
     



    Ummm... wait a minute.
    What mission(s) are those Apollo thrusters from?


    The source does not mention a mission, so they are probably static firing test units.



    posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 11:31 AM
    link   
    reply to post by FoosM
     



    Ummm... wait a minute.
    What mission(s) are those Apollo thrusters from?


    The reason I said this was an illogical question is as follows:

    The RCS thrusters were attached to the Service Module and Accent Stage of the Lunar Module.

    Neither of those pieces of Apollo returned to earth did they?

    The answer would be NO, of course not.

    So obviously the RCS thruster in those images could not be from any Mission of Apollo.



    posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 01:43 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by theability
    reply to post by FoosM
     



    Ummm... wait a minute.
    What mission(s) are those Apollo thrusters from?


    The reason I said this was an illogical question is as follows:

    The RCS thrusters were attached to the Service Module and Accent Stage of the Lunar Module.

    Neither of those pieces of Apollo returned to earth did they?

    The answer would be NO, of course not.

    So obviously the RCS thruster in those images could not be from any Mission of Apollo.



    Im glad we got that out of the way.
    So.... how were your examples relevant to PPK's examples of supposedly real Apollo thrusters not showing any residue after being used?

    Are you, in some kind of way, supporting PPK's observations?



    posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 02:01 PM
    link   
    reply to post by theability
     


    I'm sorry, but the CM did have RCS thrusters to control pitch, roll, and yaw:





    The CM had a total of 12 engines, six each in two independent systems.
    edit on 20-12-2010 by nataylor because: (no reason given)



    posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 02:08 PM
    link   
    reply to post by FoosM
     


    >sigh<


    ...how were your examples relevant to PPK's examples of supposedly real Apollo thrusters not showing any residue after being used?


    THEY WERE NEW! The residue only accumulates after many hours of use. The photos that ppk used were of the Ascent Module, taken through one of the windows, after landing.

    Think about just how little time they were actually fired, in total....do you even know how they worked?



    posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 02:13 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by DJW001
    reply to post by ppk55
     


    ppk, do you really detect a coating of black on the black thruster surface? Setting that aside for the moment, I would like to draw everyone's attention to this wonderful YouTube video from Armadillo Aerospace:


    This video, which is not from NASA, demonstrates many things relevant to this thread, not least of which is that if a bunch of good ol' boys can do this, imagine what NASA's deep pockets can do.

    NOTE:

    1) The absence of a crater at the lift off point
    2) The absence of a crater at the touch down point
    3) The absence of charring and blackening on the module's engine and landing gear
    4) The billowing clouds of dust caused by the particles being swept upwards into the atmosphere

    Any questions?


    regarding point
    1) What kind of surface(s) did it land on?
    2) See 1)
    3) Is the material and fuel similar to what NASA used for Apollo?
    4) NASA had vacuum chambers.

    and

    I see a flame.



    posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 02:27 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by weedwhacker
    reply to post by FoosM
     


    >sigh<


    ...how were your examples relevant to PPK's examples of supposedly real Apollo thrusters not showing any residue after being used?


    THEY WERE NEW! The residue only accumulates after many hours of use.



    You going to back that up with a source or explain how you got to that answer?



    posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 02:39 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by nataylor

    Originally posted by FoosM
    With this post I want to offer another example of NASA not fully understanding
    the space environment prior to claiming to send men to the moon and back
    as brought up recently by SayonaraJupiter


    I don't think anyone is claiming they *fully* understood the environment. If they fully understood it, there wouldn't be much point in sending anyone into space. What they did have was a good enough understanding to send crews up with an acceptable level of risk.


    Sayanara's point- they didnt have enough of an understanding due to the limited type of tests they conducted prior to the rushed launch of Apollo 8. In particular no biological tests to make sure their instruments didnt miss something. I pointed out that CME's were not even calculated into that risk.

    Remember,


    Soviets judge that Apollo 8 has only a 25% chance of success.
    www.astronautix.com...

    This comes from country whose space program was as advanced as NASA (maybe at the time more-so). A space program with claims of sending biology into space to test the environment, landing a probes that returned photos and samples of the moon. Who probably had an advanced spy network working in the US.
    And who stated that radiation and weightlessness was their biggest issue. Yet people here would have you believe that the USSR could not shield their craft with the same materials that NASA used?
    Not buying it.






    Originally posted by FoosM
    In an earlier post I revealed that at least 17 proton emitting X-class X-ray LDE Solar Flares were observed during Apollo mission dates. 10 flares alone during Apollo 12 including an EVA.

    I dispute that. According to this Catalog of LDE Flares, I get 7 X-class flares occurring during actual mission dates for Apollo 10-17, and all of those happened on Apollo 12.


    Thanks for pointing that out, yes I made a mistake, it should be "major" flare, and not X-class. In my earlier posts I forgot that I included M-class flares as well in my count:



    So out of those 10 flares, 7 were X-class.
    Out of those 7 X-class flares 3 of them,
    spread across every part of the Apollo 12 journey (going, landing, coming), had a SID at the maximum of 3+ !!!
    I mean thats just CRAZY! And no one sounded the alarm?







    Originally posted by FoosM
    Let me ask this question... how far did the Apollo astronauts travel with their rovers?


    The maximum was 4.8 miles on Apollo 17.


    [T]he arrival times for most events are 4 to 6 hours after the flare and radio burst. Peak particle intensities do not occur until another 4 to 6 hours after the arrival of particles. The strategy was to use this time to move the astronauts off the lunar surface and have them return to the more heavily shielded command and service module.




    How does that help with X-rays?





    Originally posted by FoosM
    Lets take a look at the satellites that measured and detected x-rays.
    The earliest I could find was:

    You didn't look very hard. Here are just a few: Explorer 7 (1959), Vanguard III (1959), Pioneer 5 (1960), Mariner 2 (1962), Solrad 8 (1965), Solrad 9 (1968).



    Pioneer 5, I dont see where it measured X-rays from solar flares.
    But ok, lets say that they were measuring X-rays since 1959.
    Now the question I have is.
    Where is the data?
    Where are the numbers for the various missions?
    Especially prior to Apollo 8.



    posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 03:08 PM
    link   
    274 pages of BS.

    We have pictures of the stuff left behind. Recent pictures... You can even make out the trail left by the astronauts walking back and forth.



    posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 03:17 PM
    link   
    reply to post by nataylor
     



    I'm sorry, but the CM did have RCS thrusters to control pitch, roll, and yaw


    Look I never said anything about the CM, now did I?

    ppk55 argument had been directed towards the SM and LM RCS thrusters.

    The thruster I linked an image of is exactly what I was talking about.

    But thanks for taking me out of context...



    posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 03:21 PM
    link   
    reply to post by FoosM
     



    Are you, in some kind of way, supporting PPK's observations?


    pk55 has the ability to observe?

    Still don't see the logic of his argument, since there isn't any.



    posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 03:36 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by FoosM
    Sayanara's point- they didnt have enough of an understanding due to the limited type of tests they conducted prior to the rushed launch of Apollo 8. In particular no biological tests to make sure their instruments didnt miss something. I pointed out that CME's were not even calculated into that risk.

    There were plenty of biological tests. Did those tests involve sending animals around the moon? No. But that doesn't mean they weren't valid.

    And sure, there were unknown risks. So what? None of the risks makes the trip impossible.



    Originally posted by FoosM
    Thanks for pointing that out, yes I made a mistake, it should be "major" flare, and not X-class. In my earlier posts I forgot that I included M-class flares as well in my count


    The particles from flares are highly directional, as I pointed out. Unless you can show that the actual particle flux increased, it doesn't matter how big those flares were.


    Originally posted by FoosM
    How does that help with X-rays?

    X-rays aren't the major risk from flares. The particle flux is the most dangerous part.


    Originally posted by FoosM
    Where is the data?
    Where are the numbers for the various missions?
    Especially prior to Apollo 8.


    It's out there, in things like journal articles (X‐Ray and Lyman‐Alpha Emission from the Sun as Measured from the NRL SR‐1 Satellite) or even direct download (GOES and SOLRAD X-ray Background Levels).



    posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 03:43 PM
    link   
    reply to post by theability
     


    I read "The RCS thrusters were attached to the Service Module and Accent Stage of the Lunar Module" to mean you thought all the RCS thrusters on the entire Apollo spacecraft were on the SM and LM. The second image you posted is specifically called a CM RCS, and since the CM did return to earth, I suppose it's possible that is an RCS thruster that was actually flown on a mission.



    posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 03:49 PM
    link   
    reply to post by FoosM
     


    First, the answer is obvious, to any rational thinker.


    You going to back that up with a source or explain how you got to that answer?


    The history is clear, as to the LM, its construction, and mission parameters. It is obvious that each one was new, and unique...and never re-used. This is so evident, it's a shame it has to even be pointed out.

    Second, you can look up the sequence of maneuvers....the CSM initially docked with LM by using the CSM RCS only. The combined spacecraft used the CSM engine, and RCS until on Lunar orbit. It was for the powered descent, for landing, that the LM's RCS are first used.

    You (or anyone) can comb through the megabytes of information and details about any of the missions you wish. You can find the instances, from transcripts and mission flight plans and profiles to add up the total usage times for the RCS. AND, there are other printed material resources...for instance, the "The NASA Mission Reports" series of publications, from Apogee Books.

    ...also, keeping in mind that not EVERY nozzle is fired each time....that is why I asked if you understood the concept of how they work!


    However, to make it a bit simpler (and save time and effort), here is what someone did, after studying in-depth the Apollo 17 mission. They wrote a simulation program (based on the NASA historical data) used:

    www.braeunig.us...

    NOTE: After viewing the first chart in the above link, this explanation:


    The maneuvers performed by the Lunar Module (LM) were DOI-2 (Descent Orbit Insertion #2), PDI (Powered Descent Initiation) and Landing. DOI was a maneuver to insert the spacecraft in the correct orbit from which to initiate descent. DOI-1 was performed by the CSM with the LM still docked. The LM, using its RCS thrusters, performed DOI-2. PDI was the maneuver that brakes the LM out of lunar orbit and lands it softly on the surface of the Moon. This was the only maneuver to use the main engine of the Descent Propulsion System (DPS).


    On the chart, total time of actual RCS firing for the DOI-2 maneuver was 21.5 seconds. AND, of course, not all sixteen nozzles would have been utilized...only the ones needed to be fired in the direction required, in order to achieve the desired delta-v.

    As you see when looking at the link, the PDI used the main descent engine (DPS). The total elapsed time, from the start of braking for descent, until landing --- 12 minutes. During the PDI, the spacecraft orientation and control was mostly achieved by gimballing the DPS nozzle. Only minor attitude corrections are needed, provided by the RCS, and then in only minimal bursts of very short duration. Anyone who bothers to realize the physics, and study this a bit more, will understand the concepts.....



    I think it's time for a movie....about ten years ago, now, a highly recommended mini-series was produced for HBO. "From the Earth to the Moon". Full DVD sets are available for purchase, of course. Still, some of it (possibly all?) can be found online, in this day and age.

    This clip, while not recreating one of the Lunar landings, is recounting the first actual flight of a LM....on Apollo 9.

    A few things: First, it shows quite clearly, as it cuts between studio produced "Hollywood" footage, and stock archival ACTUAL footage, just how utterly impossible it is to make a convincingly realistic film, even in the 21st century....with CGI technology, and over thirty years' of experience in film-making, compared to the Apollo era....

    Second, some "artistic license" is used, in the program, which is technically incorrect, but makes for more visually satisfying viewing. Sound effects, for one. But, whilst watching, the most glaring "mistake" will be the visual animation of 'exhaust plumes'. Again, the point isn't exacting accuracy in every detail....it IS entertainment, after all....however, it is as historically accurate as was feasible, within the typical (as mentioned) "license" that is used in just about every historical epic.

    The "UTube" link will take you to more videos...or, you can Internet search:





    top topics



     
    377
    << 271  272  273    275  276  277 >>

    log in

    join