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: 458
377
<< 455  456  457    459  460  461 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2011 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


My apologies..
In this thread I'm use to posters like Weedwhacker using those pics and the heavily enhanced ones as 100% proof of the landings..
Obviously they are proof of nothing as you state we can't even properly distinguish what the items are..




posted on May, 18 2011 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 

On the contrary.
Though it wasn't the point of my post, I said they can be used because they correlate with the traverse maps and photographs taken from the surface. I said that without that corroboration they could not be used.


edit on 5/18/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 01:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Firstly that's still NASA using NASA information to prove NASA went to the moon..

Secondly, it really only shows NASA got equipment to the moon..
I don't think anyone has argued that point is possible..
It's putting man on the moon that is being questioned..



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 03:52 AM
link   
reply to post by ignorant_ape
 


ALSJ ... I may be mistaken but isn't NASA the sole source of ALSJ stuff? That would be my main reason why they might not be to be believed. I would like independant proof, not NASA 'proof'.

Hi Phage... really good to see you back around on ATS, I hope you stay around, your presence was missed by many.

As for LROC photo... like many photos it could be easily doctored or it could be a photo of a model. Am I right in thinking our friend NASA is the source of these photos too? If so I would question their validity in the same way as the ALSJ photos, in that its NASA telling us what NASA supposedly did many years ago.

I'd not seen this interesting film... it shows that incredibly realistic fake moon photography has been practicised since 1874. 100 years gives people a long time to hone their art, I'm sure that in 1967 it would be very easy to simulate the moon landing in low resolution video relay images.



"No more truthful or striking representations of natural objects than those here presented have ever been laid before his readers by any student of Science."
Nature Magazine 1874

Imagine what they could do in the 21st century to simulate and fake photographs.

Is the reason the shuttle never took a closer look at the moon due to its fuel capacity? I've never understood why post Apollo missions have stayed so close to Earth's orbit... if I were a spaceman I'd love to shoot off round the moon and take hi-res pics of it for the family scrapbook.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 04:03 AM
link   
reply to post by ignorant_ape
 





NASA does not " lack the technology " to go to the moon - it lacks the hardware and most critically - FUNDING , who is going to pay for it any why ???????????


So NASA lacks the hardware to go to the moon.
Couldn't the shuttle make it with enough fuel?
If so that means NASA can't afford the petrol to get past the Van Allen belts perhaps?

Who will pay.. er... the same government that backs NASA and spends untold billions each year on Black Ops programs.
Why? Because going to the moon is uber cool.
Because hi-res photos of the moon would be great.
Because the moon might contain untold riches that will benefit hunmanity in the future and should be explored.
Because they CAN... according to NASA. (A bit like the fact the man strives endlessly to repeat its great feats of exploration.)

Surely the technology/ hardware of 1967 would be far cheaper and easier to build now than in 1967. NASA did all the hard work back then and had 100% success rate (getting men back alive) with every Apollo rocket that made it off the launch pad. Their track record with Apollo easily beats the sad shuttle history of fatalities.

So what are they doing wrong now that they got so right 30 years ago?

And if they can get to the moon with a computer smaller than the processor in my mobile phone then I would have thought it was be relatively easy to send at least an unmanned hi-res Hasselblad camera with minimal sheilding back to the moon to snap some lovely pics for us at ATS to discuss.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 04:13 AM
link   
reply to post by nataylor
 





But the Space Shuttle only produces a total of about 7.8 million pounds of thrust, compared to the Saturn V's 8.7 million pounds. So there's no way to send a vehicle that's 287% the weight of Apollo with 90% of the force. From just a design standpoint, it's also highly inefficient to send something like the Shuttle to the moon. You have to carry things like the landing gear and wings, only useful during landing, all the way to the moon and back and pay a big fuel penalty for it.


Hi Nat. Okay, so you're saying it couldn't get to the moon... from your calculations could it have got say, halfway to the moon? Two thirds of the way?

I wouldn't suggest landing the shuttle on the moon as I don't think NASA has built a runway there yet, but to use it for moon reconnaisance, take hi-res photos... get past those pesky Van Allen belts... you know... the stuff they did easily 30 years ago.

Edit: Hmmm... I read your post mentioning the shuttle having to carry 'wings and landing gear' and presumed you meant to land on the moon. Now I read it again and think that you are saying the shuttle has wings and landing gear. Yes, it does. Its the space shuttle.

Question to people who know more about this than me:

I was under the impression that once in the vacuum of space if forward momentum is achieved through an initial burts of 'thrust' then the body will continue moving without resistance. So I thought it shouldn't take too much fuel for a jaunt out past the belts and closer to the moon.
Once out of Earth's orbit couldn't one just point the shuttle at the moon, apply a short burst of thrust, then just sit back and enjoy the ride? (If I'm being super dumb here please don't be too cruel... just asking.)


edit on 18-5-2011 by manmental because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-5-2011 by manmental because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 


The shuttle doesn't have enough thrust/fuel capacity to get to ze moon.

It is like an uphill bike ride. You have to keep peddling until you get to the hump or have enough speed to get you there or you just won't arrive.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by manmental
I wouldn't suggest landing the shuttle on the moon as I don't think NASA has built a runway there yet, but to use it for moon reconnaisance, take hi-res photos... get past those pesky Van Allen belts... you know... the stuff they did easily 30 years ago.


Why would anyone want to send a space shuttle to the moon just to take pictures? Isn't it much more efficient to send an unmanned satellite instead. For example satellites like this one or this one?



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by backinblack
 

On the contrary.
Though it wasn't the point of my post, I said they can be used because they correlate with the traverse maps and photographs taken from the surface. I said that without that corroboration they could not be used.


edit on 5/18/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Never heard of Photoshop? I'm sure they can fake a few pixels that are supposedly the Lunar Module. Logically, someone who believes that the moon landings were a hoax is not going to be swayed by photographs taken from lunar orbit which supposedly show lunar modules....



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by manmental
Hi Nat. Okay, so you're saying it couldn't get to the moon... from your calculations could it have got say, halfway to the moon? Two thirds of the way?


The Shuttle has a maximum orbital altitude of 960 km (600 miles). That's around 1/400th the distance to the moon.


Originally posted by manmental
I wouldn't suggest landing the shuttle on the moon as I don't think NASA has built a runway there yet, but to use it for moon reconnaisance, take hi-res photos... get past those pesky Van Allen belts... you know... the stuff they did easily 30 years ago.
Yeah, the Shuttle couldn't land on the moon even if there was a runway, as it depends on the atmosphere for control, just like an airplane, and uses the atmosphere to slow down.


Originally posted by manmental
Edit: Hmmm... I read your post mentioning the shuttle having to carry 'wings and landing gear' and presumed you meant to land on the moon. Now I read it again and think that you are saying the shuttle has wings and landing gear. Yes, it does. Its the space shuttle.
Right. My point was, if you're designing a craft to go to the moon, you want it to weigh as little as possible. It doesn't make sense to take along big, heavy components that are only useful in the atmosphere, in which the craft will only spend a tiny fraction of the total journey.


Originally posted by manmental
I was under the impression that once in the vacuum of space if forward momentum is achieved through an initial burts of 'thrust' then the body will continue moving without resistance. So I thought it shouldn't take too much fuel for a jaunt out past the belts and closer to the moon.
Once out of Earth's orbit couldn't one just point the shuttle at the moon, apply a short burst of thrust, then just sit back and enjoy the ride? (If I'm being super dumb here please don't be too cruel... just asking.)
Assuming no outside forces, sure. Fire some thrust and you'll keep moving in a straight line. The problem here is that the Earth generates a huge outside force, in the form of gravity. Here on Earth's surface, if you throw a rock towards the moon, it'll head that direction for a little ways, but eventually get slowed down and falls back to Earth. Same thing applies in space. Just a tiny bit of thrust will send you towards the moon, but eventually the Earth's gravity will slow you down and pull you back to Earth. You have to "throw" hard enough to overcome that gravity.

Once in orbit, the Space Shuttle has a velocity around 7.7 km/s. To get to the moon, you need a velocity of around 10.4 km/s. The Shuttle's Orbital Maneuvering System (OMS) thrusters can provide 53,400 N of thrust. So if the Shuttle weighs 109,000 kg, that thrust would provide about 0.5 m/s^2 of acceleration. To go from 7,700 m/s to 10,400 m/s in speed with an acceleration of 0.5 m/s^2 would take a burn of about 5,400 seconds (90 minutes). The Shuttle normally carries about 21,000 kg of fuel in the OMS pods. This is enough for a total of 1,250 seconds (~21 minutes) of thrust. To burn for the 90 minutes needed to get the Shuttle to the moon, you'd need at least an additional 70,000 kg of propellant (actually more than that, as we're not even taking the weight of this additional propellant into consideration). Even if you used all the available payload space for propellant, you'd still be 45,000 kg short.

If you somehow you rigged it up to use the Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs) instead of the OMS thrusters, you could cut down the burn time significantly. The SSMEs can produce a total of about 6,000,000 N of force in a vacuum, which would give a total acceleration of 55 m/s^2. So for the needed velocity change, you'd need a burn of about 50 seconds. The SSMEs consume about 1,800 kg of propellant per second. So you'd need a total of at least 90,000 kg of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen to perform the needed burn. Again, this far exceeds the payload capacity of the Shuttle. And keep in mind, this is just whats needed to get the Shuttle to the moon, and does not include the fuel needed to put the Shuttle into orbit around the moon and return it to Earth.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


For crying out loud! Still???


It's putting man on the moon that is being questioned..



Oh, those "heavily enhanced" images that you still *conveniently* dismiss, even though the science that was used to do the enhancing is clearly shown, and would be understood if you lot would only take the effort to look it up!!


SO....in this newest *devil's advocate* wasted effort, now the claim is, what exactly?? That all the equipment shown in any of the orbital photos of the landing sites will have been put there, how? remote control?

Really? Is this going to be the next indefensible stance?

Sorry but --- just reviewing the last pages, and the clearly evident lack of understanding displayed, RE: the Space Shuttle, it now makes it more understandable why these ridiculous *hoax* stories get any traction at all.

Such a glaring misunderstanding of the technical details of space flight, and the limitations that are imposed --- and the means to solve those limitations, depending on the goal. That basic lack of comprehension ('ignorance'...not a pejorative, just a fact in many instances) leads to these gross misrepresentations, in people's minds, of how they *think* it *should* look, and *should* have happened.......and, the hoax-pushers play up to that ignorance, and enjoy their (brief) feeling of smugness and self-import.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Another useless rant weed..

Enhanced pics are just that, enhanced to show detail that isn't actually there..

Russia landed EQUIPMENT on the moon...

What's next for you?



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



Enhanced pics are just that, enhanced to show detail that isn't actually there..


Oh??

Prove that, then.

And, look up the definition of "enhanced" in a dictionary. (As relates to image processing techniques, of course).

Also....the USSR "landed equipment"...I presume you meant "soft" landed?

So did NASA. Look up the Surveyor program. In fact, Apollo 12's goal (successful) was to land near one of the Surveyor space craft and retrieve some equipment from it. THAT is now here, on Earth.

You missed the point, I tried to give everyone (you) the benefit of the doubt, by not *talking down* with excess explanations....guess it needed more clarity, for some people?


Fine. LOOK, again, at the landing sites.....and show an example from the USSR programs where they (Soviets) were able to "soft" land a space craft, and then place various items of equipment in a slew of locations, and add in the footpath soil disturbance evidence, and all the other sundry clues of the reality of a Human presence on the surface of the Moon.

Also, the Soviet's versions of the traverse maps that NASA compiled....the types of maps that were derived, IN 1969 - 1972 as a result of the activities of the Astronauts (all their movements were recorded and documented).

Those traverse map records ALL perfectly match the satellite images from LROC.

Waiting.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I find it quite amusing that the conspiracy theories are often more complex and harder to achieve than actually putting those men on the moon. That video clip from some TV show posted earlier illustrated that perfectly
.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Firstly Weed, enhanced is what it is..
If there's only a 4 pixel blob then it really is impossible to enhance with any certainty..
I've actually seen you and others argue the opposite in threads relating to alien structures etc..


Fine. LOOK, again, at the landing sites.....and show an example from the USSR programs where they (Soviets) were able to "soft" land a space craft, and then place various items of equipment in a slew of locations, and add in the footpath soil disturbance evidence, and all the other sundry clues of the reality of a Human presence on the surface of the Moon.

The Russians landed equipment including rovers to collect samples..
Who says them so called tracks are not made by a rover type vehicle??



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 





Why would anyone want to send a space shuttle to the moon just to take pictures? Isn't it much more efficient to send an unmanned satellite instead. For example satellites like this one or this one?


Hey PLB... I asked the very same thing myself in the post before the one you replied to. Albeit in an ironic fashion.



And if they can get to the moon with a computer smaller than the processor in my mobile phone then I would have thought it was be relatively easy to send at least an unmanned hi-res Hasselblad camera with minimal sheilding back to the moon to snap some lovely pics for us at ATS to discuss.


Surely it wouldn't be too hard in the 21st century to get a satellite around the moon to take hi-res, like 50cm per pixel, photos... like classified spy satellites can do from earths orbit i believe.
Reasons why to: Map the terrain more accurately, take photos of Lunar Module to shut me up, that kind of thing.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by nataylor
 





Assuming no outside forces, sure. Fire some thrust and you'll keep moving in a straight line. The problem here is that the Earth generates a huge outside force, in the form of gravity. Here on Earth's surface, if you throw a rock towards the moon, it'll head that direction for a little ways, but eventually get slowed down and falls back to Earth. Same thing applies in space. Just a tiny bit of thrust will send you towards the moon, but eventually the Earth's gravity will slow you down and pull you back to Earth. You have to "throw" hard enough to overcome that gravity.


Sincerely thanks dude... lovely explanation, very easy to understand now. I've learnt something so I thank you. Apologies if that was already covered in this epic thread.

While you're here Nat, do you think its possible that NASA recreated some of the lunar photos (69-72) on earth and passed them off as the real deal?



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I like watching an angry Weed wriggle. Still spouting the same mantra .. "NASA is great. NASA is good. NASA is true."



Those traverse map records ALL perfectly match the satellite images from LROC.


What an amazing coincidence... NASA's findings back up its findings.

I think the USSR have been in cahoots with NASA since 1969 to help cover up 'issues'. The reason they did this is food aid and economic aid.

Some people like Nataylor treat people's curiousity and lack of knowledge with respect.
Some people get very angry all the time and very rude and rather uncharitable.
edit on 18-5-2011 by manmental because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Phage
 


My apologies..
In this thread I'm use to posters like Weedwhacker using those pics and the heavily enhanced ones as 100% proof of the landings..
Obviously they are proof of nothing as you state we can't even properly distinguish what the items are..
Argument to Ignorance.

Again.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Phage
 


Firstly that's still NASA using NASA information to prove NASA went to the moon..

Secondly, it really only shows NASA got equipment to the moon..
I don't think anyone has argued that point is possible..
Jarrah's argued that it was impossible because of radiation in the Van Allen belt.

And then used incorrect numbers to "prove" it.
edit on 2011/5/18 by 000063 because: +




top topics



 
377
<< 455  456  457    459  460  461 >>

log in

join