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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by FoosM
Notice the debris flying up during the hovering?
By the way, Apollo 16 hovered as well.
Yet no crater.
Here is the question, after all these attempts for four years, would you risk sending men to the moon for a landing?
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...
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.
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.
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...
Originally posted by Facefirst
I really thought this video kind of nailed things.
www.youtube.com...[
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.
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.
Originally posted by FoosM
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?
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?
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?
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
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'.
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?
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'.
Originally posted by jra
You should take a read through the Armadillo Aerospace FAQ to understand there goals and development approach.
Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by MacTheKnife
Second line: I now understand why the Mods tolerate this thread.
I suspect there is but no one is going to bother to check it out. It's just not worth their time and energy.
Why shoot such a video and open yourself up to the possibility of being exposed as a hoaxer?
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.
Originally posted by FoosM
Im sorry, but this has already been dispelled in this thread. NASA did not take "so much" film of the missions.
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.
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.