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: 283
377
<< 280  281  282    284  285  286 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 11:45 AM
link   
NASA launched a few satellites around Earth to study the Aurora's. They were about to die so NASA decided to slingshot them around Earth and let the moons gravity pull them into a Lunar Orbit. Parked around the moon they can still get enough sunlight to keep pulling science data from them.

www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2010/07/aurora-mission-makes-detour-to.html

SOOOO....why can't the ISS (space station) use the same shoe string slingshot method to get to the moon for a nice slow cruise to put the ISS in orbit around the moon?

(humans couldn't survive the radiation exposure)




posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pervius

(humans couldn't survive the radiation exposure)


No, it's because those satellites and the ISS are in vastly different orbits.


The spacecraft were already in elongated orbits that passed close to Earth at one end and looped far into space at the other end.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Pervius
 



why can't the ISS (space station) use the same shoe string slingshot method to get to the moon for a nice slow cruise to put the ISS in orbit around the moon?


The ISS weights about 1,000,000lbs. Source

The Apollo CSM/LM stack was about 102,691.6lbs Fully fueled on the the launch pad. Source

The Command Module was called Columbia and the Apollo Lunar Module was called Eagle. The launch weight of the Saturn V was 2,923,387 kg and the total spacecraft weight was 46,678 kg. The Command Service Module weighed 30,320 kg (CM was 5960 kg, Service Module: 24,360 kg). The Lunar Module weighted 16,448 kg, of which ascent stage was 4985 kg and the descent stage 11,463 kg.


Do you know how much energy it would take to "slingshot" the ISS to the moon??

Plus the major factor is that ISS cannot handle the stresses involved with that kind of burn anyway.

So take it or leave it, the ISS is made for LEO.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Pervius
 


Perhaps you were absent from school the week they discussed orbital mechanics in Physics, or Science class?

And, possibly also missed the video I posted some days back that was very instructive.

Here is a version that includes a short clip from the longer video (further research is available merely by using your access to these InterWebz that allow you to communicate on ATS this very day!):



It is not a "simple" matter, to drastically alter the orbit of the ISS. Firstly, the structure was not designed to have significant forces of thrust applied to it.....these would have to be arranged so as to act through the center of gravity of the Station, as a whole, or else a rotational motion will be imparted to it. Also, the Station is designed for a Zero-G environment. Applying the force of thrust sufficient to alter its orbit substantially (even IF such engines were installed) would result in acceleration forces on the structure.....acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity. SO, components that are attached at places where they never were designed to support "weight" would tend to fail at those attachment points, and things would start to break.


Here's the full half-hour video....would do you a great deal of good to watch it and learn (It's only slightly longer than an episode of Gilligan's Island, less the commercials...so maybe you can spare the time?....):




posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   
More to the point, forgetting for a moment that it's not possible to 'just' slingshot the ISS over to the Moon, why the hell would we want to do it?
Good job the people in charge of designing and operating this equipment have brains and it's not left to the plebs



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



The point is that the maps are similar in scale.
Maybe I should of said they are using the same cameras.


Why shouldn't they be to the same scale? You can enlarge a photo to any desired size. Am I missing something here?


I would expect in 2009 to see a higher resolution photo of the moon.
Not something that looks like it was taken in 1967,
Do we have any photos from modern probes that show a great deal more than what they already had
done in the 1960's?



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pervius

SOOOO....why can't the ISS (space station) use the same shoe string slingshot method to get to the moon for a nice slow cruise to put the ISS in orbit around the moon?


Or a modified space shuttle...
Or any other new craft.

If humans expect to survive long term flights to mars, for example, in 10 to 15 years,
they better start practicing in their own backyard.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 

"real time video color correction"?

This is a part of the film making process, after all. When the shots are "in the can", a film director and editor review all the source material. Color correction is a vital part of post-production work in film making.

From the article that Weedwhacker posted,

Apollo 16 and 17
Two factors improved the quality of the television still more on the last Apollo missions. NASA's using the 210-foot dish stations of the Deep Space Network, which increased the signal strength by almost 8 dB, brought about the first improvement.

Image Transform, then a startup company in North Hollywood, brought about the other improvement. They demonstrated to NASA, using Apollo 15 footage, their new proprietary system for enhancing video. NASA had them bring their system online for Apollo 16. Now the converted video from all EVA's was shipped to California, enhanced, returned to Houston, and then distributed to the network pool, all in real time.

During Apollo 15 EVA's, the camera developed a clutch problem in the tilt axis. Flight control deemed it too risky to tilt the camera during liftoff to follow the ascent stage. For Apollo 16 and 17, however, flight controllers did track the ascent stage. With the punch button command arrangement and a 3 to 4 second time delay, their command sequence had to be totally preplanned.


This is "switch-a-roo". NASA handed off the video to a Hollywood startup video CGI company called Image Transform. So it is a fact when we are watching these videos we are not seeing original NASA footage - we are not seeing original source material. We are only seeing what NASA wants us to see - copies of copies, converted conversions that have been "color corrected"?

I think it is wrong for NASA to pass off this video material as original source material and I think it is a bit problematic for vehement NASA supporters to insist that this is original NASA source material. The article posted by Weedwhacker clearly describes that the video for A16 & A17 were "converted" and "enhanced", "shipped" from Houston to Hollywood back to Houston in "real time" before the video was released to the "network pool".

*I* have no problem going with *MY* gut feelings here. NASA/Apollo was a huge operation with so many employees and nexus with other huge organizations, including military, including corporate partners. When running a very large operation like this it is EASIER (not harder) to get away with a video "switch-a-roo". Why? Because all the normal employees have highly specialized & compartmentalized job functions. Yet, there are certain employees (appointees) high in the chain of the command structure who have the motive and opportunity to orchestrate a video "switch-a-roo" like this rather easily. Now I can see that there is another large question mark over the A16 & A17 videos. Weedwhacker, thank you so kindly:lol
eja Vu.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Why should they be higher resolution? More detail isn't always better and if it's not required for the task at hand completely pointless. It would increase the cost of the instrument, the data would require more bandwidth and longer transmission times with greater opportunity for error and it would accomplish what exactly? Even if it impossibly had 1mm / pixel resolution and showed the Apollo equipment in amazing detail you would just snivel and say it was photoshopped. These instruments are not put into operation to provide evidence to a relatively small number of insignificant peasants that Apollo occurred, contrary to your expectations. In the grand scheme of things you people don't matter so get over it, you are little more than an irritation to people like me that find the existence of such backward ideas and thinking in our modern world an absurdity.
Do you realise the sheer volume of data that is received from these existing 'inferior' probes? Do you realise that this data has to be transmitted in a limited timeframe with limited bandwidth? The LRO doesn't have access to the AOL Unlimited package you know

The platform is designed to host specific instruments for specific tasks, these are designed to operate within the required specifications for a given task and to do so efficiently. If you can't even work stuff like this out without being told I'd find something you're more qualified to discuss like... Who the winner of next year's 'Dancing with the Stars' or whatever crap you watch will be.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker


See there? The Command and Service Module used different hypergolic fuels for RCS propellant. The Lunar Module used the same propellant for the RCS as for the engines. When the various substances react, they will have different visual appearances...and as already mentioned, the LIGHTING makes a big difference, too!!

(Is a match flame brighter in direct sunlight, or reflected sunlight, or in dark of night??)



Weed you are very vague.

Are you saying you cant see a match flame during the day?
Are you saying that the Apollo 3 footage was shot at night?
Are you saying regardless of day or night we shouldnt have seen any of the thrusters of the C/LM spew out material?

Take a stand man. Stop straddling the fence.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 




How sad...

You "think" you have found a "goldmine"? When this information has been public domain for....how long, by now? And yet....NOT ONE EDUCATED PERSON has drawn the same conclusion, based on the facts of the participation of that Los Angeles company, except ........YOU!!!!!!

....AND< you are basing modern (aka 2010-era video processing technologies and capabilties) to something from the early 1970s!!! (Apparently). It's obvious you're in over your head, here....but, do (just for entertainment's sake) continue.

Video processing tech, digital CGI and such...these aren't my fields. Just an amateur armchair film buff, and result? I tend to key in on articles that are discussing filming techniques, when I see them....and I even UNDERSTAND quite a bit of it, in limited ways. Because, I DON'T have these inflated expectations and fantastical noitons that some others seem to labor under, on this topic.

I can think (offhand) of at least one ATS member who will have a LOT to say, being an expert and all on these things (Pinke). Of course, we also have a Mod who is quite knowledgable.....though, by this point, I doubt either of them care to get into this mess of a thread......it has reeked of nonsense for some time, now........


OH, and!!! Don't know your age, but as to your "belief" that ALL the Apollo EVA footage was "run through" that company in LA, before being viewed by the public?? I watched it (along with millions and millions of others around the world) LIVE!! At the SAME TIME. They were doing it, actually at the SAME TIME as it was being shown on the Television Machine, carried by the airwaves (no "cable TV" yet, in case you didn't know that).

SO, "enhancements"??? THEY were all for YOUR benefit!!??


Well, obviously not you, nor the other few, other ungrateful.....(**)

**(Coin a term for them??? How about "Jarrahs"? We can make it a verb, too....to "pull a Jarrah" would describe an incredibly stupid claim, or some such action. "Be a Jarrah" is descriptive, like an adjective. Hey! I like this idea!!)

....but, really....the video history is for the ones who are able to appreciated the science, and the accomplishment, and view it AS the history that it is...and thus enjoy a fairly decent version that may (or may not....probably, the "enhancements" are extremely minor, and hardly noticeable, on average) be slightly better than the "raw" tapes.....

And you think it was all ....what? "CGI"??? In 1970??? Mmmmmmkay........check, please!!


edit on 26 December 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   
By the way, here are the recently published results of the RADOM radiation experiment on the Indian Chandraayan 1 lunar probe.

arxiv.org...

How odd, looks like even with the extended mission time in comparison to Apollo there were no lethal doses in the VAB, en route to the Moon or in orbit round the Moon itself. In fact the total dose for the entire mission duration was more than acceptable. How peculiar...
Better add the Bulgarians to the list of nations 'in on it' with NASA protecting the 'hoax'.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


What the hell is YOUR point??? :shk:


In YOUR post here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

....you included SEVEN different YouTube videos. SEVEN!! At the bottom of a group of "#2, #3 and #4" (in that order, in the post) you posed "questions" about, it seemed, the visual appearance of the RCS thruster operation on the STS-130, versus two examples of an Apollo Lunar Module docking sequence....one unidentified, and the other ("#4") Apollo 14.

WHY do you persist in playing games with this Board, and "playing" dumb? The videos in question you posed ---- the answers were given ----you claim the answers were "vague"?? BECAUSE, you focused, (AGAIN!!) only one aspect, in this case a simple (thought I'd make it as simple as possible, to draw an analogy) comparison to a flame, and sunlight.....didn't know I had to explain every letter in each word, and mention things that are apparent to virtually every adult currently drawing a breath on this planet.

What about the information I linked to the types of propellants used, in the various vehicles, and their differences?? Did you ignore that part? Did you ignore it, AND not bother to do a little research on your own, in order to LEARN something (for a change)?? AND, did you ignore the video?

AND< to everyone reading, when you look back at the post of FoosM's that is referred.....is there ANYONE who thought the intent of the post was pure and sincere? Was it a valid quesiton, asked in innocence, in order to seek knowledge?? Some people saw something of merit in it, apparently. Well, IF (big if) it was genuine answer-seeking, then YES! Merit. Earned. HOWEVER....if, once the answers are given, then they are IGNORED? And, IF that is a continuing pattern, for months now???

What opinions shall one draw then, mmmmmm??


Again....ALL of the answers about the hypergolic fuels used were in that post....yet you still "claim" it was too "vague"? I am sick of these silly games. Continue to "play" at your own risk.

____
Now, those SEVEN videos....three are answered (the first is out of place to the topic at hand).

Next, "#5"...STS-132 and a "downlink" burn....which, again (like the STS-130 vid) AT NIGHT!! THIS time, unlike the night vision camera/film/video on STS-130, they used "natural" exposures....and, the hot hypergolic reaction that is indicative of the RCS fuels used on the Space Shuttle (different than on Apollo LMs) makes the exhaust visible, in the darkness.

"#6"? STS-132 again, a "Simplex" burn they called it. Did you listen to the soundtrack? Read the information? It was an OMS burn. And, unclear about what made that "so important" to whatever "claims" you are trying to make, here....

"#7"? Apollo 3. (AS-202). What's the problem there? The very fact THAT YOU ASKED, in the (not so cleverly veiled) passive-aggressive manner that has become your M.O. shows that you indeed are NOT here to learn anything. Including it shows that you don't bother to attempt understanding, and instead wish to continue wasting time here, in this (again) pathetic "game"....and only YOU know what the "purpose" can be....is it a sick pleasure, appearing terminally dull to strangers on the Internet? Because, that is becoming the end result, in case you hadn't noticed yet.....


edit on 26 December 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Wasn't the International Space Station the subject of conversation a few posts back?



If humans expect to survive long term flights to mars, for example, in 10 to 15 years,
they better start practicing in their own backyard.


Isn't the ISS practicing in our own back yard?



jra

posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Its like NASA is using the same plaster of paris moon they used for Apollo for new missions.
Im starting to think that maybe they are hiding something there on that moon.


These two sentences contradict one another. First you imply that both sets of images are fake, but then go on to say that you think they might be hiding something on the Moon. Wouldn't you need to have gone to the Moon, to know what's there, if you're going to hide or cover-up something that's on it?

As for the two images being compared. The one from the LRO in that image is at 1.07m/pixel. (Link), but there are others that are higher like this one.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by FoosM
Its like NASA is using the same plaster of paris moon they used for Apollo for new missions.
Im starting to think that maybe they are hiding something there on that moon.


These two sentences contradict one another. First you imply that both sets of images are fake, but then go on to say that you think they might be hiding something on the Moon. Wouldn't you need to have gone to the Moon, to know what's there, if you're going to hide or cover-up something that's on it?


I was being facetious about them hiding something on the moon.
However, if they actually sent out a probe and found something worth hiding, wouldn't they release
fake photos? And in order to maintain the lie, as well as continue to get funding to operate, wouldn't they have
to continue to work from the original fake photos?




As for the two images being compared. The one from the LRO in that image is at 1.07m/pixel. (Link), but there are others that are higher like this one.



Where is the antenna?



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Where is the antenna?


It blew over during the hot-fire test, so basically edge on it's not going to present a particularly good profile for the 50cm resolution of the LROC photo. What were you expecting? Something clear and defined like the Lunar Module? Try and do some research....


140:50:02 Shepard: Okay. Here we go. (Long Pause) Okay, Houston. The (S-band) antenna blew over.
www.hq.nasa.gov...


Still waiting for your intellectual and researched response to the latest radiation data gathered by a Non-NASA Bulgarian instrument on an Indian platform. I'm already anticipating one response from you, let's see if you live up to your reputation and fulfill my expectations, or maybe you will try and think first? Nah, doubt it, why change a habit of a lifetime.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by theability
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?


Well here's another question for you ... and for everyone as it relates to my original post about the residue that should be found on the RCS thrusters.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

What is concerning me is how the RCS thrusters on the service module survived the launch.
Let's have a look at them just after blast off on apollo 11.



They're not very aerodynamic are they? ... in fact .. if you look at this picture taken in alleged space they look particularly flimsy.



How could they have survived the launch and enormous aerodynamic pressures they would have been subjected to on launch. Ridiculous.

edit: here is the 'official' full frame image, even though it looks a bit like the movie 2001. sources below



personal comment: I don't think they needed to worry about whether the RCS would survive the launch. There are so few photos of them in alleged orbit. If these stages were to be discarded in low earth orbit as suggested, then it wouldn't matter it they were aerodynamic or not, as the 'astronauts' would have simply jumped out of the back of a plane in the capsule.

sources:
www.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...


edit on 27-12-2010 by ppk55 because: added full frame source + added important word 'alleged' + 2001 reference + personal comment



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by DJW001
 

"real time video color correction"?

This is a part of the film making process, after all. When the shots are "in the can", a film director and editor review all the source material. Color correction is a vital part of post-production work in film making.


Generally speaking the director and the DOP (director of photography) would sit with a colorist on a film together. The editor is often a separate role in larger projects, so too often would be the telecine etc ... Anyway, this is somewhat of a diversion anyway. What is being described would be a live edit/switch job which is somewhat different to a sit in session in a post suite.


This is "switch-a-roo". NASA handed off the video to a Hollywood startup video CGI company called Image Transform. So it is a fact when we are watching these videos we are not seeing original NASA footage - we are not seeing original source material. We are only seeing what NASA wants us to see - copies of copies, converted conversions that have been "color corrected"?


What you've described is no different from what happens during cricket, or at the soccer. Would you consider soccer or cricket a switcheroo?

The things you may have issues with ... With the system being 'propitiatory' ... This would be expected. During that time you wouldn't have a GUI. You would be doing heavy mathematics and scripts to get things done. Therefore, a start up having a system like this would be pretty normal. Most companies I've worked for have had self made programming and applications for solving various problems. I even have my own scripts which could be classed as a special system.

The company itself was not a CGI company. Am not really sure why you would refer to it as so apart from perhaps a lack of understanding of the subject matter or was it sourced incorrectly? Mostly it was image processing based mainly around analog processes. They worked on the Andromeda Strain providing 'video effects' and if you've seen the Andromeda Strain those effects were mostly simple processes at least by modern standards. The company mostly does film and video transfers, and is currently working on play boy films. This resume would fit with the work they did for NASA but not for any CGI or VFX based processes.

www.imdb.com...

As far as the enhancing goes ... I would have to look at the exact process more, but chances are it wasn't any enhancing more than just color processing and perhaps better data management. They couldn't do serious VFX in real time and with the signal being heavily compressed altering its levels and such like would be very important to managing the data stream.

Color correction back in those days had a pathetic margin of tools compared to what we run with today. Literally the colorist would have Input/output (similar to levels for photoshopists/adobe persons) and print lights red, green, or blue. I'm not sure what could be hidden with these basic tools. They could have put some custom algorithms through perhaps, but these would be procedural and therefore limited in how effective they could be and how much they could be relied upon.

What you've really just discovered is one of the philosophical conundrums of film and television. What is truth? What is reality? From the very moment you turn a camera on truth is being occluded. We have already chosen what we are filming and excluded all that is outside the frame. Then we have set the camera's f-stop etc ... so we have chosen how the camera interprets light based on our interpretation of how it should look. Then we have scanned the film ... We have then taken that scan and compressed it clipping higher and lower values and discarding data to fit it into a data pipe for viewing by an end user.

I wouldn't call any of this misleading any more than I would call leveling out audio misleading. It just has to be done.


I think it is wrong for NASA to pass off this video material as original source material and I think it is a bit problematic for vehement NASA supporters to insist that this is original NASA source material ... [sic] ... the video for A16 & A17 were "converted" and "enhanced", "shipped" from Houston to Hollywood back to Houston in "real time" before the video was released to the "network pool".


If you've seen flat video footage - it's not pretty. It looks washed out, and not much like reality. It *needs* adjustments to be watchable. If the information wasn't 'enhanced' viewing audiences would likely have spent some time being a bit annoyed. Even to this day on an offline non linear editing system there are certain processes to be followed and tricks to be done to avoid losing data and this isn't even in a live environment.

Bottom line is ... if you think NASA is lying then so is the rest of television. Just to give an idea ... shooting a low budget film using cameras which are capable of 160 mb/s ... by the time this signal reaches you depending on output and country ... it might be 50 mb/s or lower and this was only changed recently in many places. Many final outputs are actually 35 mb/s or even below.

I guess the last thing to consider is this was the later missions of Apollo. If it was suspicious and required to hide things why wasn't it there in the beginning?

Anyway, apologies if I've glossed over some. Busy with holidays and such. Hopefully some of it is helpful. I imagine it may not change anyone's mind though.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


The CSM RCS quad did not need to be particularly streamlined. When the air was thickest, the rocket was standing still. It accelerated very slowly, and by the time it was moving quickly enough for drag to become an issue, most of the atmosphere was behind it. The RCS thrusters on the shuttle need to be streamlined because the craft was expected to be able to maneuver in the atmosphere like an airplane. As for them looking "flimsy," well, they were made out of metal. I'm sorry if you feel they don't look robust enough.




top topics



 
377
<< 280  281  282    284  285  286 >>

log in

join