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: 405
377
<< 402  403  404    406  407  408 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001

First, what you're saying is that you are more swayed by production values than content. It has already been pointed out that his argument is scientifically flawed. That explains a lot. Second, you need to present citations for your assertion that NASA's films were enhanced by "Hollywood contractors" and that the Apollo negatives were screened through NPIC/CIA. If you don't. we will know that you discovered it's not true.



Despite NASA's astronaut photography benefiting a wide range of civilian interests, it occasionally conflicted directly with the critical national security requirement to protect the National Reconnaissance Program from public disclosure or compromise. The Intelligence Community consequently imposed a number of restrictions, from reviewing the photography before public release to limiting the capabilities of NASA's image-forming sensors. At the same time, beginning in the Mercury program the Intelligence Community acquired and analyzed some of the photography as a possible source of intelligence data that otherwise was not being collected.


the Apollo astronauts had a backup mission. They were supposed to circle the Earth and take photographs of the surface using the various cameras that they had aboard their spacecraft. Although this would have been a scientifically disappointing mission, and a major propaganda failure, it was NASA’s best attempt at salvaging something from the mission. For some of the later Apollo missions, the Command Module mounted a powerful camera intended for photographing the surface of the Moon. In Earth orbit, this would have produced relatively good photographs of the ground, better than any publicly released before—in fact, of a quality not publicly released until the 1980s.



The Apollo Panoramic Camera was a derivative of an aerial reconnaissance camera known as the IRIS II, which was itself a derivative of the KA-80 camera. The KA-80 was originally designed for use on the SR-71 spyplane and later the U-2. It was what was described as an optical bar design, which enabled it to photograph a long thin image on a long strip of film at high resolution, and yet still remain compact enough to fit within the camera bay of an airplane or a spacecraft. It had a 61-centimeter focal length and from a 425-kilometer orbit could produce ground resolution of between 7.6 to 10.7 meters, meaning that a photographic interpreter could spot and identify large objects like buildings and some ships. At the time, American reconnaissance satellites fell into two general categories: “search” systems with resolution of about 2–3 meters and “spotting” systems with resolution as good as 15 centimeters. But the Apollo camera would have returned pictures far better than any ever made public before.


NASA was basically spying on the Soviets and the Chinese right under their noses.
LOL.

Question, where the "moon photos" of apollo 17 better than the ones of Apollo 11?




www.thespacereview.com...
www.sciencedirect.com... teway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1700958414&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b4be99b11800dc13 94ad7a7f86b2e17a&searchtype=a




posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
NASA was basically spying on the Soviets and the Chinese right under their noses.
LOL.


I thought you were supposed to be showing that they filtered pictures of the moon, unless you think the Earth is faked


Also you've still not responded to my last reply to you.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Why do you keep doing this, FoosM? What your source says is:


The Apollo program was carried out amid the klieg lights of the press on the world stage. That was, after all, the point—it had to be public, even the failures. However, there were aspects of Apollo that were classified. Relatively minor aspects, admittedly, but ones that still affected American national security.

In the event that an Apollo spacecraft was unable to leave Earth orbit, which could have happened if there had been a problem firing the third stage engine on the Saturn 5 which placed the Command and Service Modules and the Lunar Module on a lunar trajectory, or an early problem with the Lunar Module, the Apollo astronauts had a backup mission.

Your own source.

Hmm... I wonder why you left that first part out. The part about how public the program was.

edit on 31-3-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
How is it off?
Im not saying you are wrong, but you are not providing anything for a layman to understand why you are right.
And, even if his math is off, how off is it? Do we get a crater or not?
Not even NASA/Researches are sure, based on computer models, what to really expect in a future landing.


I'll see if I can explain it more simply.

JW is calculating the force required to lift a spherical rock straight up. On the moon, since the force of gravity is 1/6th that of earth, it does indeed take less force to lift an object straight up. And with a fixed exhaust pressure, you would be able to lift a spherical rock that is both larger in diameter and, hence, heavier, than the same exhaust pressure on earth could lift.

However, what he shows and what he talks about, are the rocks that are pushed along the surface, sideways (also called laterally). Since the force of gravity is directed straight down, the movement of these rocks is perpendicular (at a 90 degree angle) to the force of gravity. Gravity is a vector (a directional force). It has no lateral component to it. All the force is directed straight down. Thus, it does not have any influence over the lateral movement of these rocks.

We know that force (F) is equal to mass (m) times acceleration (a), or F=ma. The force of the exhaust exerted on these rocks moving laterally (F) is going to be equal to the exhaust pressure (P) times the cross-sectional area of the rocks (A), or F=PA. Knowing these two equivalencies for the force, we can say that PA=ma.

Whether you're on the moon or earth, all those values stay the same. None of the values are dependent on the forces of gravity. The exhaust pressure does not vary with gravity. The cross-sectional area of the rock does not vary with gravity. The mass does not vary with gravity (mass is an inherent property; it is only weight, or mass times acceleration due to gravity, that would change). The lateral acceleration imparted to the rock does not vary with gravity.

So JW's video is really talking about something that is irrelevant to the formation of a crater and the spreading of materials under the exiting exhaust.

The lack of crater can be mostly attributed to the compaction level of the soil. Above 10cm, the density of the soil greatly increases. Thus, the compacted soil acts almost as solid surface, inhibiting the formation of a crater.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


OK....your post of a few days back, rife and flooded with so many "videos", so many "questions". It is an obvious tactic that belies an agenda....(or, at least, appears to. You don't wish to be accused of such a thing, do you?).


SO, I have a question: When you post up a flood of videos, all suggestively "asking questions" about them, are you being honestly curious, or is this something long suspected (and a copy of Jarrah White's vile methods of "argument by innuendo")??


Let's just pick out one, and focus on it. The film footage that was posted on YouTube, and used in your post:



Originally posted by FoosM
or even videos of docking:

www.youtube.com...

How does that thing spin and stop on a dime?

for comparison:


(And here, was inserted a short clip of a Space Shuttle, in process of docking with the ISS. A VERY short clip).


Firstly, the Apollo 11 example. Which camera was filming that, do you know? Remember the DAC? (Data Acquisition Camera). One was mounted in the LMP window of the LM ascent module/crew compartment. We recall that one, yes?

But, what about inside the CM?:


16-millimeter Maurer Data Acquisition Camera.

Apollo 11 carried two Maurer data acquisition cameras, one on the command module and one on the lunar module. The cameras were used primarily to record engineering data and for continuous-sequence terrain photography. The CM camera had lenses of 5-mm, 10-mm, and 75-mm focal lengths; the LM camera was fitted with an 18-mm wide-angle lens. Accessories included a right-angle mirror, a power cable, and a CM boresight window bracket.

The Maurer camera weighed 2.8 pounds with a 130-foot film magazine attached. It had frame rates of 1, 6, and 12 fps automatic and 24 fps semiautomatic at all lens focal lengths, and shutter speeds of 1/60, 1/125, 1/500, and 1/1000 second, again, at all lens focal lengths.


www.lpi.usra.edu...

DO you understand what that means? The various "frame rates" info that I highlighted?

Do you know what the film looks like if you originally expose it at a rate of ONE frame per second (fps) .... just for example, not saying THAT clip is at that rate .... then play it back at the normal speed of 24 fps? Can you understand that that is a sort of time-lapse photography??

SO, the apparent spinning and stopping "on a dime"? Pretty much easier to understand, now isn't it? ALSO, a huge clue to the camera's frame rate, and "faster than normal" replay result is by looking at the Lunar surface, and the unusually high rate it passes under neath, on orbit. (Each orbit took about TWO hours, total....and the CSM was at about 45miles/60km height above surface. SO, you can gauge how fast it "should" look....compare to the ISS, over Earth. Couple hundred kilometers high, but faster....larger planet....about 90 minutes for one orbit completion).

For that on Lunar orbit docking, the DAC looks to be either at 12 fps, or maybe 6 fps. Simply slowing down that clip, to the proper rate, and it will then look "real time", and the "on a dime" start/stop won't be so odd-looking.

Can you think of the practical reason to set the camera at a slower frame rate?? (Perhaps, to make the limited lengths of film they had last longer...??).


(I can't help but wonder IF you knew this, or had an idea, before you posted the video??) I can't read your mind, of course. But, can see patterns in posts, and my suspicions of intentional deceit are keenly activated, here -- and in many cases of your posting style.


Here is another docking video. This, on the TLI coast to the Moon. The combined spacecraft separates, the CSM makes a 180, and then comes back to dock with the LM, which is still in its storage from the launch.

It looks to be "real time" speed, 24 fps frame rate:




Here, other Earth-bound videos of something just about every Human can comprehend, and relate to.....question:

How do those cars "stop on a dime" at the intersection???








edit on 31 March 2011 by weedwhacker because: quoted video link, rather than full EMBED.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 


Why do you keep doing this, FoosM? What your source says is:


The Apollo program was carried out amid the klieg lights of the press on the world stage. That was, after all, the point—it had to be public, even the failures. However, there were aspects of Apollo that were classified. Relatively minor aspects, admittedly, but ones that still affected American national security.

In the event that an Apollo spacecraft was unable to leave Earth orbit, which could have happened if there had been a problem firing the third stage engine on the Saturn 5 which placed the Command and Service Modules and the Lunar Module on a lunar trajectory, or an early problem with the Lunar Module, the Apollo astronauts had a backup mission.

Your own source.

Hmm... I wonder why you left that first part out. The part about how public the program was.

edit on 31-3-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



What you posted was irrelevant, thats why I didnt post it. We all know that Apollo was a public stunt (admittedly so), so obviously it would have a very public face. What we are searching for is its true mission. That true mission could have very well been its back up mission, which was to spy on other countries.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by nataylor
 



We know that force (F) is equal to mass (m) times acceleration (a), or F=ma. The force of the exhaust exerted on these rocks moving laterally (F) is going to be equal to the exhaust pressure (P) times the cross-sectional area of the rocks (A), or F=PA. Knowing these two equivalencies for the force, we can say that PA=ma.

Whether you're on the moon or earth, all those values stay the same. None of the values are dependent on the forces of gravity. The exhaust pressure does not vary with gravity. The cross-sectional area of the rock does not vary with gravity. The mass does not vary with gravity (mass is an inherent property; it is only weight, or mass times acceleration due to gravity, that would change). The lateral acceleration imparted to the rock does not vary with gravity.


So you are saying a golfer or a discuss thrower would not hit/throw any further on the moon?
I'd have thought gravity would affect lateral movement..
Simple example would be merely picking up an object too heavy to pick up on earth and taking a step..



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


No, a golf ball or discus involve a vertical component to their movement. When you hit a golf ball, it goes up and comes down, following a parabolic trajectory. Because the force of gravity is lower on the moon, the golf ball will go higher. But the horizontal component of the golf ball's motion will be the same on earth or the moon (again, assuming we're in a vacuum). The only reason the ball would travel farther is because it would be in the air longer, not because it was traveling faster.

JW was talking about things being pushed along the ground, yet all the math he did only applies to straight up and down motion.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by nataylor
 


JW was talking about things being pushed along the ground, yet all the math he did only applies to straight up and down motion.


Sorry but IMO something with less gravity/weight would definitely be easier to push..
I've seen clips of the astronauts kicking large rocks laterally with ease..
They could not do that on earth..I think your math is flawed..

You mass component should take into account the gravity factor..It IS relevant..

edit on 31-3-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

You mass component should take into account the gravity factor..It IS relevant..

edit on 31-3-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)
No, mass is independent of gravity. If you had a frictionless surface on earth, it would take the exact same amount of work to move a mass laterally as it would on a frictionless surface on the moon. Now the weight of the object (which is dependant on gravity) would effect how much friction there was on a surface with friction. But JW doesn't address that at all. His math is Irrelevant to the actual situation he's illustrating.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by nataylor
 


Interesting topic..I don't mind learning..


A baseball pitcher pitches a ball at around 100mph..
On the moon would the same pitcher pitch a ball six times heavier at the same speed?
To me that seems logical..



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


I thought you Aussies liked Cricket more.


The pitch (which is largely horizontal) would still be roughly 100mph.

The baseball has the same mass on the earth and the moon. If the pitcher delivers the same amount of force, the pitch speed will be the same.

Now let's say you rigged something up so you allowed the pitcher to throw his normal pitch, but he was oriented so the ball would go straight up. The ball would still leave his hand at 100mph. However, on the moon, the acceleration due to gravity is lower. So that 100mph pitch straight up will slow down more slowly on the moon than it would on earth. That's why the ball will go higher on the moon, not because the ball leaves the pitcher's hand at a higher speed.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by backinblack

You mass component should take into account the gravity factor..It IS relevant..

edit on 31-3-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)
No, mass is independent of gravity. If you had a frictionless surface on earth, it would take the exact same amount of work to move a mass laterally as it would on a frictionless surface on the moon. Now the weight of the object (which is dependant on gravity) would effect how much friction there was on a surface with friction. But JW doesn't address that at all. His math is Irrelevant to the actual situation he's illustrating.


Actually no, because there will be rocks and soil going directly upwards.
Blow into a glass with dust in it and the dust will fly up and hit you in the face.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by nataylor
 


Yeah cricket is our sport but I used baseball for the US members..


But you didn't answer my question..
Would he pitch a heavier ball at the same speed ??



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor
reply to post by backinblack
 


I thought you Aussies liked Cricket more.


The pitch (which is largely horizontal) would still be roughly 100mph.

The baseball has the same mass on the earth and the moon. If the pitcher delivers the same amount of force, the pitch speed will be the same.

Now let's say you rigged something up so you allowed the pitcher to throw his normal pitch, but he was oriented so the ball would go straight up. The ball would still leave his hand at 100mph. However, on the moon, the acceleration due to gravity is lower. So that 100mph pitch straight up will slow down more slowly on the moon than it would on earth. That's why the ball will go higher on the moon, not because the ball leaves the pitcher's hand at a higher speed.


I would even say that mass can change and does change in space or on the moon.
That is, if we actually knew what mass really was.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Sorry, If my answer wasn't clear. No, he'd pitch a ball 6 times heavier at a slower speed on the moon, the same speed he'd throw that same ball on earth. It doesn't matter what the mass of the ball is, he'll throw it at the same speed on the earth or moon. The larger the mass, the slower he can throw it.
edit on 31-3-2011 by nataylor because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Sorry, If my answer wasn't clear. No, he'd pitch a ball 6 times heavier at a slower speed on the moon, the same speed he'd throw that same ball on earth. It doesn't matter what the mass of the ball is, he'll throw it at the same speed on the earth or moon. The larger the mass, the slower he can throw it.
edit on 31-3-2011 by nataylor because: (no reason given)


That's hard to get my head around..
In his hand the ball would weigh less..
Thus I'd expect his arm movement would be just as fast as if he was pitching a lighter ball..
The speed of his arm determines the speed of the ball leaving his hand..
Therefore I'd expect the same velocity as the lighter ball..



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Hey op,

Could you give us an update on the subject? I really don't feel like reading 400+ pages



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



I would even say that mass can change and does change in space or on the moon.
That is, if we actually knew what mass really was.


Mass is the amount of "stuff" in something. Now you know what it is.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by nataylor
 


Interesting topic..I don't mind learning..


A baseball pitcher pitches a ball at around 100mph..
On the moon would the same pitcher pitch a ball six times heavier at the same speed?
To me that seems logical..


Revise your logic then


As has ben posted, F=ma, and therefore a = F/m

So the acceleration your pitcher can impart to the ball is the force of his arm divided by the mass of he ball.

The mass of the ball does not depend on gravity - 1 kg mass on earth is still 1kg mass on the moon. However it WEIGHS 6 times as much on the earth as it does on the moon.

Simlarly the pitcher is not any stronger on the moon - his arm will still generate the same force.

So if you give him a ball on the moon that is 6 x the mass on one on the earth he will think the weight is the same, but he will only be able to give it 1/6th the acceleration of the smaller one, regardless of whether he is on th earth or the moon.

HOWEVER....what you may be being confused by is how far the ball will travel on the moon vs on earth.

Given balls of equal mass, and the same distance above the surface, and 1 g vs 1/6 g, and a vacuum (more or less) vs earth-normal atmosphere, the ball on the moon will travel further.

This is because the acceleration towards the surface is slower, so it takes longer to hit the surface.

plus also there is no air resistance, so the ball will retain its horizontal velocity.

So the initial speed of the ball will be the same, but it will retain that speed longer, and it will fall to the surface much slower, so it will travel further.

without resorting to the exact equations, I am unsure off the top of my head whethe the 6 x heavier ball on the moon would travel as far as the lighter ball on earth - whether the slower horizontal speed will counter act the lesser vertical acceleration by gravity - I suspect it might, and the lack of air resistance would allow it to go a bit further....but that's just musings....



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 402  403  404    406  407  408 >>

log in

join