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: 635
377
<< 632  633  634    636  637  638 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Foos you already posted this "No plume" question back on Page 401.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And poster nataylor pretty much explains away the supposed "anomaly".

I would also add to what natataylor said...........the Apollo 9 mission was purposely to "test out" the performance of the LEM..........so therefore it is quite probable that the Apollo 9 crew exceeded the required propulsion fuel mix for their planned Lunar manouvres........just like a person testing out a new car......he/she is likely to drive faster than usual, accelerate harder and brake harder .......just to see how the car performs.........I would imagine the Aplollo 9 astronauts and Nasa had the same mind set when testing out the LEM


edit on 31-10-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


I found a plume! It's on the Apollo X patch!





posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logical one
reply to post by FoosM
 


Foos you already posted this "No plume" question back on Page 401.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



Oh, so you can go back and dig up older posts.
And you still haven't found those statements made by van Allen?

Getting back to your post.
This is an update to that, meaning, more information is provided.
So how do you reconcile it?

edit on 31-10-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Oh, so you can go back and dig up older posts.
And you still haven't found those statements made by van Allen.



Oh don't start that silly game again FoosM.



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by FoosM
 


I found a plume! It's on the Apollo X patch!




Lol. The Patch department was not in sync with the Prop department.



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
This is an update to that, meaning, more information is provided.
So how do you reconcile it?


What new information - I didn't see any.

there's a flash of plume on Apollo 9, none on the LEM........same as you said a few hundred pages ago....



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by FoosM

Oh, so you can go back and dig up older posts.
And you still haven't found those statements made by van Allen.



Oh don't start that silly game again FoosM.


Well Mr. Logical one,
"Likely" and "probably" is not "definitely"... its just "possibly", which doesn't make it "true"

Maybe you can answer the following:
How fast was the LM going when it launched?
How powerful was the thrust?
And how long did it burn for?



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by FoosM
This is an update to that, meaning, more information is provided.
So how do you reconcile it?


What new information - I didn't see any.

there's a flash of plume on Apollo 9, none on the LEM........same as you said a few hundred pages ago....



....You watched how much of the video?



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


No answer huh??

Figures....



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Seriously? Compare exhaust blumes in oxygen saturated atmoshphere with the moon? I'm no rocket scientist but wth? Also he nicely shows that when you compare it to another space footage of the same kind you get the exact same result. Is he even trying anymore???



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by FoosM
 


No answer huh??

Figures....


You statement indicates you didnt watch the video.
So, no, why should I even begin a discussion with you?
You should be providing a realistic explanation why
we see plumes in all other cases except the launch of the LM from the moon.
And, even more silly, that Apollo 8 astronauts describe seeing a plume from the LM while orbiting the moon.
(they had no idea of course that the faked launches would be plume free)



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by FoosM
 


Seriously? Compare exhaust blumes in oxygen saturated atmoshphere with the moon? I'm no rocket scientist


So what difference would it make?
Did you hit the bourbon btw?



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


So you have entered a conversation with me to tell me you don't want to enter a conversation with me??!!


I watched the whole video - 9-and-a-bit-minutes - before going to work some time ago - I didn't have time to carefully take in everything that it said nor to watch it since, so I asked a fairly simple question about what is new.

Apparently you can't answer the question so I'm going with my previous impression that in fact there is nothing new.

Looking up the 'net I find a reference to the Apollo 8 astronauts seeing the plume from a J-2 rocket at translunar injection - is that the point?

The J-2 rocketof course uses Liquid Oxygen and Liquid Hydrogen - not the same invisibly burning fuel as the LEM at all.

Plume visibility for some fuels is discussed here - apparently even with the same fuel there an be different exhaust colours & visibility depending on temperature & cooling systems.

edit on 31-10-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)


jra

posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
we see plumes in all other cases except the launch of the LM from the moon.


Let me introduce you to the Titan II GLV. It uses the same propellant as the LM. Aerozine 50 / Dinitrogen tetroxide.

Here are some photos of a Titan II GLV launching: photo1, photo2

The thrust coming from the rockets is not as visible compared to other rockets. Once in space, out of the atmosphere, you can't see it at all.

Start at 2:06, which shows a Titan II launching. At 2:30 onboard camera footage is shown of the first stage separation, with the second stage rocket in view as its thrust hits the first stage, but no plume is visible.



And, even more silly, that Apollo 8 astronauts describe seeing a plume from the LM while orbiting the moon.


I hate to break it to you, but Apollo 8 didn't have a LM. But Aloysius the Gaul already covered this.
edit on 31-10-2011 by jra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
And, even more silly, that Apollo 8 astronauts describe seeing a plume from the LM while orbiting the moon.
(they had no idea of course that the faked launches would be plume free)


Wot even more sillier than not realising that Apollo 8 had no LM



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by FoosM
And, even more silly, that Apollo 8 astronauts describe seeing a plume from the LM while orbiting the moon.
(they had no idea of course that the faked launches would be plume free)


Wot even more sillier than not realising that Apollo 8 had no LM


No....I don't think it is siller than that. Or, to put it in a more active voice, I think that saying Apollo 8 had a LM is pretty much the silliest thing in this thread for a long time.

All in all this particular little issue has been just anotehr microcosm of the debate in general - the so-called proof only proves that the hoax-theory believers are not actually doing any research themselves - just repreating stuff they've been led to believe & chosen not to question.



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra

The thrust coming from the rockets is not as visible compared to other rockets. Once in space, out of the atmosphere, you can't see it at all.

Start at 2:06, which shows a Titan II launching. At 2:30 onboard camera footage is shown of the first stage separation, with the second stage rocket in view as its thrust hits the first stage, but no plume is visible.


The thrust hits the first stage and what do we see happening?
Secondly, Im sure if we watched from the other side, we would see a brightly hot glowing nozzle.

For example:


I also see plumes during these Apollo stage separations which Im assuming is occurring in space:



That is what JW was pointing out with a Apollo 9, which, from what I assume, much farther away than the ascending LMs when it was filmed.





I hate to break it to you, but Apollo 8 didn't have a LM. But Aloysius the Gaul already covered this.


Yes you are right, Apollo 8 didnt have a LM, confused it with Apollo 10. So... it would be silly for Apollo 8 astronauts to see a plume from the LM. LOL.



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


just saw that Video, excellent IMO~! here's something that has not be seriously technically addressed either on ATS or other website..

The amount of fuel needed to launch off the moon, to stay in orbit is seriously lacking to me; not to mention the amount of oxygen needed to breathe which I've posted way earlier in the thread ..

the math doesn't compute to the needs of the engine, physics or human consumption to proceed ..



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Komodo
 


Too bad you are fooled as easily as Jarrah White....and continue to buy his horse radish in his "plume" video. Guess you aren't reading the actual science presented here??



The amount of fuel needed to launch off the moon, to stay in orbit is seriously lacking to me;


Huh?

Then, how to you explain the ISS? The Space Shuttle flights?? Or, the Soviet's Mir???

To "stay in orbit", you ask? Sorry, but before you are even remotely *qualified* to "question" Apollo, you'd better bone up on many very, very basic sciences first.

Which brings me to:


....not to mention the amount of oxygen needed to breathe which I've posted way earlier in the thread ..


Really?? :shk: See above.......



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


right.. as i said before.. it has never been technologically spells out in detail.. just like this reply, all 'slam & bang' but no details..

try again ..

oh ..and why do i have to be qualified to ask a question ??



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 632  633  634    636  637  638 >>

log in

join