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: 514
377
<< 511  512  513    515  516  517 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra

But what I'd really like to do is go back to your original post where you said:


Originally posted by backinblack
I have seen recent clips of new generation landers and many are NOT very stable even given the incredible advances in computing power..


Can you post some links to these clips of these unstable landers so we can find out specifically what went wrong with them? Like, if it was indeed a stability issue, or simply a mechanical problem that went unnoticed until it was too late, etc.


The Apollo LM first official test landing was Apollo 11.
It never had landing or launching issues for another five tries.


21st century landers, with no persons on board.
50% success, landing on clean flat surfaces.


Notice the debris flying up during the hovering?
By the way, Apollo 16 hovered as well.
Yet no crater.

Here is the question, after these two tries would you risk sending men to the moon for a landing?


Summary of the X-prize:

2006 (Only Armadillo was qualified to compete)

Armadillo made three attempts to win the prize, each one using Pixel. In all three cases, difficult landings left them short of the mission requirements—on two occasions, rough landings caused damage to the vehicle; on a third, the vehicle failed to land completely on the target pad. Team Armadillo left without any prize money


Here is the question, after these three tries would you risk sending men to the moon for a landing?




2007 (Only Armadillo was qualified to compete)

Armadillo entered their MOD vehicle for level 1. They attempted six flights, but never completed the full profile. A flight on October 27 ended with the vehicle crashing on the return flight. Their final flight attempt on October 28 caused a fire on the launch pad. Team leader John Carmack expressed his disappointment, saying "today is officially a bad day when it comes to our vehicle.


Here is the question, after these six tries (total of 11) would you risk sending men to the moon for a landing?


2008

TrueZer0 attempted level 1, achieved hover, then lost roll control and was aborted and crashed.
Armadillo had an unsuccessful first attempt at level 1, and landed early due to inadequate thrust. On their second attempt they completed the first leg, but the second leg was cut short by the FAA closing the flight window. The second leg was held in the afternoon, and they were able to take the Level 1 top prize of $350,000.[10]
Armadillo made an attempt at the level 2 prize on October 25, but had a fuel valve failure, burned through the engine nozzle, and rolled the vehicle at takeoff.


2009

Armadillo Aerospace made their attempt for the Level 2 purse from Caddo Mills, Texas, on September 12 and 13, and successfully qualified for the Level 2 prize. The judges would later rule the accuracy of this flight as 2nd place for Level 2.[15]
Masten Space Systems attempted to win second prize for Level 1 on September 15–16, but aborted after first flight. They successfully flew both legs (Level 1) on October 7 from the Mojave Air & Space Port. The judges would later rule the accuracy of this flight as second place for Level 1.
BonNovA had previously announced it intended to attempt to claim the Level 1 prize in Cantil, California, on Oct 26th-27th, but cancelled the weekend before the scheduled date.
Masten Space Systems attempted the Level 2 flights on Oct 28-30 from Mojave. After problems with the computer aborting the launch, a fire after one attempt and overnight repairs, the "Xoie" rocket flew both legs and qualified for Level 2. The judges would later rule the accuracy of this flight as 1st place for Level 2, and awarded the US$1,000,000 Level Two prize to Masten.
Unreasonable Rocket attempted to claim purses in both competition levels from Cantil, California on Oct 30 to Nov 1, and did make an 84 second pad-to-pad flight on the Level 1 competition, but did not successfully complete either level.


Here is the question, after all these attempts for four years, would you risk sending men to the moon for a landing? And the other question is, why havent they been able to duplicate the success of the LLTVs?





en.wikipedia.org...




posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 05:07 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


FoosM, Armadillo Aerospace consists of seven guys working in a garage.
www.armadilloaerospace.com...

You're comparing this to a high priority Federal project at the height of the Cold War? Incidentally, most of Armadillo's problems seem to be revolving around the electronics... microchips not used in the 1960's.


jra

posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Notice the debris flying up during the hovering?


Yes I do notice it. My question to you would be, what is the landing pad made of and how much force from the thrust of the rocket is being applied to that surface?


By the way, Apollo 16 hovered as well.
Yet no crater.


No there wouldn't be or not much of one anyway. You should take a read through this webpage. Someone went and did the math to see how much of a crater an LM could make.

www.braeunig.us...


Here is the question, after all these attempts for four years, would you risk sending men to the moon for a landing?


Risk sending people in what exactly? None of those rockets were capable of sending people anywhere, since they're obviously too small. Armadillo Aerospace is also a very small company, with a small budget. As of 2010, the company had 7 full time employees, the rest of them work part time. They're obviously not ready to go for manned landings on Earth, let alone the Moon.



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Oh NASA...



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by FoosM
By the way, Apollo 16 hovered as well.
Yet no crater.


No there wouldn't be or not much of one anyway. You should take a read through this webpage. Someone went and did the math to see how much of a crater an LM could make.

www.braeunig.us...


Please note:

This analysis is nothing but a theoretical construct designed to form a correlation between the energy of the exhaust gas and the volume of soil displaced. The actual interaction between the exhaust gas and the lunar soil is far more complex than has been taken into consideration here.


I recall studies showing craters being made.



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Risk sending people in what exactly? None of those rockets were capable of sending people anywhere, since they're obviously too small. Armadillo Aerospace is also a very small company, with a small budget. As of 2010, the company had 7 full time employees, the rest of them work part time. They're obviously not ready to go for manned landings on Earth, let alone the Moon.


Yes, but what do you expect in the 21st Century?
Thats the point of advancing in technology.

And yes, its unmanned, its smaller why dont they have a better record?

Anyway, how many people do you think made the LLTV? Thousands?



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra

No there wouldn't be or not much of one anyway. You should take a read through this webpage. Someone went and did the math to see how much of a crater an LM could make.

www.braeunig.us...


A few more points about the crater and lunar dust.

If the the topsoil was loose and blown away by the LM landing, and the soil underneath was hard and didnt crater, then:

1. wouldnt there be a limited amount of top soil below the LM? So shouldnt we see a decrease in the amount of soil being displaced as the LM was descending?





2. Why do we have deep footprints from astronauts close to the LM? Wouldnt that topsoil be blown a good distance from the LM considering weaker gravity, and no atmosphere? They should have been walking on hard ground, right?



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Facefirst
I really thought this video kind of nailed things.
www.youtube.com...[


I really thought this video nailed it as far as the Van Allen belt radiation goes. But alas, poster FoosMasoos is right. Since we can't establish that the weather pattern pic from the ATS III weather satellite were not also tampered with, they can't be used to prove the weather pattern 'fingerprint'.

If they had faked the mission, they would've made sure that all weather pattern pics for that period were from the same source. (Although IMO, these hoax scenarios are getting a lot more complex than simply landing on the moon,)

A really well-done video and well worth the embed here: (the bit about Van Allen himself commenting on the moon hoax is priceless)


jra

posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by FoosM
By the way, Apollo 16 hovered as well.
Yet no crater.


No there wouldn't be or not much of one anyway. You should take a read through this webpage. Someone went and did the math to see how much of a crater an LM could make.

www.braeunig.us...


Please note:

This analysis is nothing but a theoretical construct designed to form a correlation between the energy of the exhaust gas and the volume of soil displaced. The actual interaction between the exhaust gas and the lunar soil is far more complex than has been taken into consideration here.


I did note that, did you keep reading after that?


Despite the limitations of this analysis, the conclusion is inescapable: no pronounced crater is formed. No more soil can be removed than there is energy available to detach, entrain, and transport it away. The energy of the exhaust gas has been determined to a reasonably high degree of confidence, and the energy require to produce a large crater is simply not present.



I recall studies showing craters being made.


And were these studies done prior to any Moon landing? Before anyone really knew what the Lunar surface was like?


Originally posted by FoosM
Yes, but what do you expect in the 21st Century?
Thats the point of advancing in technology.


Just because we're in the 21st century, doesn't mean things are some how easier to do now. Especially when there hasn't been a lot of development of VTVL rockets to begin with.


And yes, its unmanned, its smaller why dont they have a better record?


Why should they have a better record? They are using what information is available in there development, but they are essentially doing this from scratch and with as low of a budget as possible.

You should take a read through the Armadillo Aerospace FAQ to understand there goals and development approach.


Anyway, how many people do you think made the LLTV? Thousands?


Probably not thousands, but much more than what AA has, and with a significantly higher budget too.


Originally posted by FoosM
1. wouldnt there be a limited amount of top soil below the LM? So shouldnt we see a decrease in the amount of soil being displaced as the LM was descending?


If you read the link I posted before, you would have read that the "intensity of the exhaust stream increases as the footprint shrinks because the gas is being concentrated into a smaller and smaller area." In other words, the LM was able to blow out more dust from below it as it got lower, since the exhaust was being concentrated over a smaller area.


2. Why do we have deep footprints from astronauts close to the LM? Wouldnt that topsoil be blown a good distance from the LM considering weaker gravity, and no atmosphere? They should have been walking on hard ground, right?


If you read the link I posted before, you would have seen the diagrams illustrating how big of an area the exhaust blew the dust out from under the LM.
edit on 10-7-2011 by jra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23

Originally posted by Facefirst
I really thought this video kind of nailed things.
www.youtube.com...[


I really thought this video nailed it as far as the Van Allen belt radiation goes. But alas, poster FoosMasoos is right. Since we can't establish that the weather pattern pic from the ATS III weather satellite were not also tampered with, they can't be used to prove the weather pattern 'fingerprint'.

If they had faked the mission, they would've made sure that all weather pattern pics for that period were from the same source. (Although IMO, these hoax scenarios are getting a lot more complex than simply landing on the moon,)

A really well-done video and well worth the embed here: (the bit about Van Allen himself commenting on the moon hoax is priceless)



Thats the trouble with the hoax believers any bit of evidence given against their belief has to be faked


They say no stars in pictures -we show why!
They talk about shadows in different directions- we show how it can happen even on Earth! etc etc

This has not just been going on for 500+ pages BUT YEARS!!!! The same old BS from hoax believers has to be explained for a new generation every so often!



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 06:00 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Thats the trouble with the hoax believers any bit of evidence given against their belief has to be faked


Indeed. That's is why Jarrah is trying to get money to go to the moon. With some hoax believers, the only way they will ever believe that man has gone to the moon is to go themselves.

I have a feeling it's the same for Foosm. He won't believe it until he sees it himself. And again, unless Jarrah and Foosm are taken to the moon by an agency that has absolutely no ties to NASA, they still wouldn't believe it! (suggestive hypnosis, '___', and all that...)



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23

I really thought this video nailed it as far as the Van Allen belt radiation goes. But alas, poster FoosMasoos is right. Since we can't establish that the weather pattern pic from the ATS III weather satellite were not also tampered with, they can't be used to prove the weather pattern 'fingerprint'.




Yep, I've been busy poking holes in this video



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
2. Why do we have deep footprints from astronauts close to the LM? Wouldnt that topsoil be blown a good distance from the LM considering weaker gravity, and no atmosphere? They should have been walking on hard ground, right?


Why must it be right? What actually are the physics/measurements/science that you presumably understand that show it to be right?

Presumably the info you have gives a distance you expect the regolith to have ben blown away - and how does this compare to the distance to the footprints?



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23I really thought this video nailed it as far as the Van Allen belt radiation goes. But alas, poster FoosMasoos is right. Since we can't establish that the weather pattern pic from the ATS III weather satellite were not also tampered with, they can't be used to prove the weather pattern 'fingerprint'.


So what's the HB theory on this ? That the video and later film from Apollo was faked and somehow the ATS III photo was also faked to agree with them ? So NOAA, who received the ATS III data, is also in on the hoax ? And where there no other recipients of the data ? Did none of them not notice that the picture showed clouds (or not) when they could look up and see no clouds (or some) ? Was there no other meterological evidence to show the picture to be correct ... or not ? I suspect there is but no one is going to bother to check it out. It's just not worth their time and energy.

Can someone explain why, if the Moon missions are a hoax, why the script would have called for such an elaborate weather faking scheme ? Wouldn't it have been a lot simpler just to confine the video to the interior of the "fake" capsule ? Of barring that, have only a fuzzy, out-of-focus, small view of the "Earth" to suggest to the masses that they were in space ? Why shoot such a video and open yourself up to the possibility of being exposed as a hoaxer ?



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra
You should take a read through the Armadillo Aerospace FAQ to understand there goals and development approach.


Just a few pertinent paragraphs from that FAQ ...

How is your approach to building rockets different from government space programs?

We approach rocket design much like software design – build many different incremental designs that we can test constantly and work out all the kinks as we go. Build, test, fix, then test again.

Following a typical Big Aerospace design approach would be like programming a software design for months or years without ever being able to compile and test your code. And then getting only one chance to let 'er rip, crossing your fingers and hoping all your mountains of paper studies will pay off and nothing will go wrong the first time out. NASA has shown that such an approach can work, but at such great cost and time that a great many of its projects never move beyond the paper study stage. We'd rather actually fly everything we design, and see in the real world what works and what doesn't, so we can build off that first-hand experience on future designs.

What's with your landing gear? Why don't you use something more like NASA's Apollo program lunar lander had?

Since Armadillo Aerospace's primary goal is affordable space access, simplicity is a major driver in most of our engineering decisions. We feel it is better solve to a problem using an approach that is simple and cheap, even if inelegant, than over-engineering it, or applying pre-conceived notions to how something should look. Yes, we have had landing failures in our development program, but building, testing, fixing then testing again is practically our motto.


So they build a little and test a little, and repeat in order to find and fix their mistakes quicker and cheaper. But it does mean "airing your dirty laundry" as well.

Didn't NASA perfect all this stuff decades ago? Aren't you just re-inventing the wheel? Do you draw from old aerospace documents and research?

NASA did a great job getting people into space in a relatively short amount of time in the 60s, but the progress since then has been alarmingly slow. And, nearly everything NASA achieved in the 60s and since then has only been possible with HUGE price tags.

Armadillo Aerospace wants to show that the same types of things can be accomplished at a fraction of the cost. So while it may seem that the technology is similar, it is actually being accomplished for two orders of magnitude (or more) less money than NASA ever could. That means that what can be accomplished with that technology will not only be able to become more common, but rides for people like you and me will actually be within our reach.

Nevertheless, we do read as much pertinent information we can get our hands on from the history of aerospace. Even though we are “starting from scratch” to try to do it cheaply, there are volumes of information that John and team members read that gets integrated into their engineering world view. They find that the NASA SP reports from the 60's and 70's are fantastic resources. Modern NASA reports, not so much so.

Why do your “lunar landers” use GPS as part of the guidance package when GPS isn't available on the moon?

Nobody is considering these vehicles actual prototypes for a "real" lunar lander; they are specifically built to compete in the Lunar Lander Challenge, which is meant to spur progress in private companies seeking low-cost alternatives to space access. Yes, you can't use GPS at all on the moon (well, you can a tiny bit, but not as it is used here on earth), so for guidance on the moon, an Armadillo lander would need to use a combination of star/sun/earth trackers for orientation, and dead reckoning IMUs and laser/radar altimeters for positioning.



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by MacTheKnife
 


Yeah, that's about it. Everybody on Earth lies except Jarrah White.
Second line: I now understand why the Mods tolerate this thread.



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by MacTheKnife
 

Second line: I now understand why the Mods tolerate this thread.


Well other than the obvious amusement quotient, I for one, have learned a lot ... especially from "nataylor". Frankly there should be a lot of kudos handed out to all those who have patiently squashed the BS promulgated in this thread. I mean asking why AA's efforts aren't "as good" as what was done during Apollo is something like asking why a car, made by students to compete in Formula SAE, isn't "better" than Mario's Indy 500 winning Hawk-Ford (1969).
edit on 11/7/11 by MacTheKnife because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by MacTheKnife
 



I suspect there is but no one is going to bother to check it out. It's just not worth their time and energy.

Chances are it would be discounted as faked as well. I was pretty impress with the author of the video for finding that ATS III pic confirming the weather patterns. Sadly, it didn't prove to be the smoking gun I believed it'd be.

You have to remember that HBs are already ignoring a massive amount of empirical data, which for most of us is sufficient to prove the reality of the moon missions. (PS - Creationists and Holocaust deniers also have to ignore empirical data in order to hold on to their theories)


Why shoot such a video and open yourself up to the possibility of being exposed as a hoaxer?


Yes, the blurry globe in the background would've been much easier. Also, notice in the video that they shoot earth from two different windows. That means that the 'fake' globe would have to be shot in 3D to look as it did. (A 2D representation would've been instantly noticeable when viewing from two different POV)

More importantly, if the mission had been faked... why take so much video/film? They could've take a few clips of the flag ceremony, maybe a few minutes of them walking around, driving the LM, setting up the reflectors, etc. Instead, NASA chose to document and film virtually every instant of the missions. Not very consistant with a hoaxers methods, IMO.

Have the HBs ever demonstrated exactly how NASA could fake all this? I remember Jarrah getting some heat earlier in this thread because he had said that the astronauts had stayed in LEO over the Antarctic (or something like it), which was later proven to be impossible.

Are there any other HB scenarios laid out? Are there any alternative theories on how NASA could've pulled this off?



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23

More importantly, if the mission had been faked... why take so much video/film? They could've take a few clips of the flag ceremony, maybe a few minutes of them walking around, driving the LM, setting up the reflectors, etc. Instead, NASA chose to document and film virtually every instant of the missions. Not very consistant with a hoaxers methods, IMO.



Im sorry, but this has already been dispelled in this thread. NASA did not take "so much" film of the missions.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


And video, well you had three missions where it wasnt used much at all.

Apollo 11: Short EVA
Apollo 12: Camera Failure
Apollo 13: No landing

The rest you had many useless shots.
Or long scenes. Nothing extraordinary.



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23

More importantly, if the mission had been faked... why take so much video/film? They could've take a few clips of the flag ceremony, maybe a few minutes of them walking around, driving the LM, setting up the reflectors, etc. Instead, NASA chose to document and film virtually every instant of the missions. Not very consistant with a hoaxers methods, IMO.

Im sorry, but this has already been dispelled in this thread. NASA did not take "so much" film of the missions.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
And video, well you had three missions where it wasnt used much at all.

Apollo 11: Short EVA
Apollo 12: Camera Failure
Apollo 13: No landing

The rest you had many useless shots.
Or long scenes. Nothing extraordinary.


I didn't know "so much" could be so quantified. But in what way has the main point been dispelled ? Why shoot any film or video of actions or items that could later be used to uncover your hoaxery ? And thus have to expend the effort to cover your tracks so completely, as would have to have been done with the ATS III imagery (wereit true that Apollo was a hoax). Why would the NASA hoaxers script this ? Or if the activity was unscripted, allow it to become part of the record ? Surely NASA could have sold the "excuse" of weight budget to limit any such film or video to short, carefully scripted segments where there's be little chance for anyone to discovery their chicanery. But we have hours of imagery you deem "not extraordinary" (other than it being shot on the Moon).




top topics



 
377
<< 511  512  513    515  516  517 >>

log in

join