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: 641
377
<< 638  639  640    642  643  644 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by MasseyFerguson49
It's sad to say that what we once thought was our greatest achievement (mankind) turned out to be a gigantic lie. The Van Allen Belt, The flag waving, the multiple shadows etc. etc.. Too much fact and evidence to dismiss.



Massey you sound like someone who spent a lot of time researching the subject...........at least a full 45 minutes that it took you to watch Fox's "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?".

Well Massey just to save you from too much hard research....here's what Dr Van Allen........yeah the guy they named the belts afters said :

"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen
edit on 2-11-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Hey Foosm when are you going to tell us why you bought Nomenclature of an Assassination Cabal by William Torbitt into the thread as some sort of evidence of a moon hoax, or why you consider it a factual document??



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Back to business.


As we can see in this LRO picture the astronaut footpaths are approximately 1 meter wide, or more.
In this picture we can see dark trails left by the astronauts on the surface of the moon. The trails appear darker because they have been "enhanced" by NASA.

If anyone disputes this then they can feel free to post a non-enhanced version because I have not seen any posted in this thread yet.


Waiting for some expert commentary on that "L shaped" flag and the uniformity of blackness which encircles the Challenger descent stage.

I don't find the "L shaped" flag to be credible. The black pixels are larger than the surrounding gray area and were obviously dropped in.



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


And so what??


2nd



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Waiting for some expert commentary on that "L shaped" flag and the uniformity of blackness which encircles the Challenger descent stage.

I don't find the "L shaped" flag to be credible. The black pixels are larger than the surrounding gray area and were obviously dropped in.





As Aloysius the Gaul asks before me........what was the point you were making Sayonara?


edit on 2-11-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by Komodo
 


yes LOX [ liquid oxygen ] simply needs to be allowed to boil - voila - instant gaseous O2


ahh.. so they boiled the LO2 ... if so .. that would be interesting to see the technical details of that little process.. sounds kinda dangerous ..

Boiling Point: -183.0 °C (90.15 K, -297.4 °F)

Handling and Storage

Store and use liquid oxygen with adequate ventilation. Do not store in a confined space.
Cryogenic containers are equipped with pressure-relief devices to control internal pressure. Under normal conditions these containers will periodically vent product. Do not plug, remove, or tamper with any pressure-relief device.

Where outside storage is used, provide for protection against the extremes of weather.

Oxygen must be separated from flammables and combustibles by 20 feet or a half-hour fire wall. Post "No Smoking" and "No Open Flames" signs.

Customer storage sites having a capacity of more than 20,000 scf must be installed in accordance with the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 50.

Use only oxygen compatible lubricants.

Other symptoms include fever, and sinus and eye irritation. When pure oxygen is inhaled at pressures greater than 2 or 3 atmospheres, a characteristic neurological syndrome can be observed.

Signs and symptoms include: nausea, dizziness, vomiting, tiredness, light-headedness, mood changes, euphoria, confusion, incoordination, muscular twitching, burning/ tingling sensations particularly of the fingers and toes, and loss of consciousness. Characteristic epileptic-like convulsions, which may be preceded by visual disturbances, such as loss of peripheral vision, also occur. Continued exposure can cause severe convulsions that can lead to death. The effects are reversible after reduction of oxygen pressure. source



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by JohnnySasaki
 



Is that your final answer? You do realize I will take this as evidence to the contrary (that you don't have any), just like all the other childish moon hoaxers, right?


Another childish concept.
Twisting the FACT that everything you've asked has already been addressed into a confession from me that I don't have an opinion on the matters you question..

I tried to get you to debate maturely but it's obviously a waste of breath..

Have fun with you antics and don't expect a reply to further childish posts..


How did I know you would miss-interpret that line? Maybe in not elaborating on that, it will, in turn, reveal what I was trying to get across.


Twisting the FACT that everything you've asked has already been addressed into a confession from me that I don't have an opinion on the matters you question..


Sure it has buddy. I have still yet to see you back up that statement. I think you're scared. What a childish concept.



Have fun with you antics and don't expect a reply to further childish posts..


Yea, that's what I thought little girl. I just called you a little girl. Are you going to cry to mommy and conveniently disregard my entire post like you have been doing ever since our argument got started? Probably.



Another childish concept.


You know what I think is a childish concept? Not being able to admit you're wrong over the internet.

I think it's funny how I always respond to everything in your posts, but you always pick out the part that is the most convenient to you and skip over the really important parts. I appreciate your god like maturity level.



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Komodo
 


Sorry, but just what does your *source* about the handling and care for LOX here on Earth have to do, at all, with the use of it on the spacecraft??

It's called "rocket science" for a reason......



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by Komodo
 


yes LOX [ liquid oxygen ] simply needs to be allowed to boil - voila - instant gaseous O2


ahh.. so they boiled the LO2 ... if so .. that would be interesting to see the technical details of that little process.. sounds kinda dangerous ..

Boiling Point: -183.0 °C (90.15 K, -297.4 °F)

Handling and Storage




Yes.....and??


Liquified gases are in common use all around the world - you can probably go down to your local supplier and buy liquid nitrogen - there may be some dangerous goods requirements - I don't know - but there are considerable industries set up to generate, transport, store and use such materials.

why would you consider it important, or even noteworthy, in the context of a moon hoax??



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ignorant_ape
 


kk.. and that's 45,329.xxxx US gals of LOX, divided by 5000 gal tanks, is 9 tanks...



I just don't see where they had space on the CM, LEM or CC to put all these tanks at in these diagrams .. and i can't find any other better details on the net either.. that actually SHOWS the tanks, i guess it's assumed that there 'just there' .. ?

project Apollo

the point I'm making is the space needed to house all this LOX, i just don't see it..

5,000gals =668.40 Cubit ft

A cubic meter is a measurement of volume, that takes your ocean freight shipment, and is equal to space of one meter wide, one meter long, and one meter high.

One metric meter = aprx. 3.28 metric feet
ONE CUBIC METER = aprx. 35 CUBIC FEET
source

If if it is compressed, wouldn't that mean the tanks needed to be heavier to withstand the pressure; which would mean thicker walled tanks =more weight...

anyways .. the entire Apollo diagrams just don't show the space used and complete detail..



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Komodo

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by Komodo
 


yes LOX [ liquid oxygen ] simply needs to be allowed to boil - voila - instant gaseous O2


ahh.. so they boiled the LO2 ... if so .. that would be interesting to see the technical details of that little process.. sounds kinda dangerous ..

Boiling Point: -183.0 °C (90.15 K, -297.4 °F)

Handling and Storage




Yes.....and??


Liquified gases are in common use all around the world - you can probably go down to your local supplier and buy liquid nitrogen - there may be some dangerous goods requirements - I don't know - but there are considerable industries set up to generate, transport, store and use such materials.

why would you consider it important, or even noteworthy, in the context of a moon hoax??


sure.. show me where and how they converted this LOX to O2? in detail .. i'd be really untested to find you pull up .. because I can't get details on the process.. how NASA did it for 12days in space.



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
reply to post by ignorant_ape
 


kk.. and that's 45,329.xxxx US gals of LOX, divided by 5000 gal tanks, is 9 tanks...



I just don't see where they had space on the CM, LEM or CC to put all these tanks at in these diagrams .. and i can't find any other better details on the net either.. that actually SHOWS the tanks, i guess it's assumed that there 'just there' .. ?


AFAIK they had 290 kg of LOX on the SM - as I linked to earlier - www.abovetopsecret.com... - where does your 45,000 gal come from??



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Komodo
 


Sorry, but just what does your *source* about the handling and care for LOX here on Earth have to do, at all, with the use of it on the spacecraft??

It's called "rocket science" for a reason......


right.. thx, I was trying to make a comparison.. since handling LOX should be the same in space as it would on earth.. the properties won't change.. LOX on earth =LOX in space..

but...anyways..



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Komodo
 


ROFLMAO - you think the CM / LM oxygen supply sounds ` a little dangerous ` please look up the specs of the saturn v rocket , the oxidiser for all 3 stages was LOX

PS - how dangerous do you think the fuels for the RCS thrusters was ?

or the LM asscent / descent stages ?



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Komodo
reply to post by ignorant_ape
 


kk.. and that's 45,329.xxxx US gals of LOX, divided by 5000 gal tanks, is 9 tanks...



I just don't see where they had space on the CM, LEM or CC to put all these tanks at in these diagrams .. and i can't find any other better details on the net either.. that actually SHOWS the tanks, i guess it's assumed that there 'just there' .. ?


AFAIK they had 290 kg of LOX on the SM - as I linked to earlier - www.abovetopsecret.com... - where does your 45,000 gal come from??


here,


171590 litres . for the entire mission


simply converted to gals.. here



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by Komodo
 


ROFLMAO - you think the CM / LM oxygen supply sounds ` a little dangerous ` please look up the specs of the saturn v rocket , the oxidiser for all 3 stages was LOX

PS - how dangerous do you think the fuels for the RCS thrusters was ?

or the LM asscent / descent stages ?


i think you've missed my point in that post..

anways..



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Komodo
 


Sorry that you don't understand the science.

When a gas like oxygen is chilled down to the temperature where it becomes a liquid, then it is a much smaller volume in the container than is possible when it is in its gaseous state.

The other choice for storing a gas is to keep it under great pressure...but, there are limits there.....and, the liquid state of a gas is far safer than the same gas in a very high psi state, at ambient temperatures. All that pressure is far more dangerous, should an accident occur, and it is released explosively.



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
sure.. show me where and how they converted this LOX to O2? in detail .. i'd be really untested to find you pull up .. because I can't get details on the process.. how NASA did it for 12days in space.


I don't know how they did it "in detail" - but conversion of liquid gas to gaseous state is pretty simple - lower the pressure or raise the temperature & it boils & becomes gas.

then you regulate the pressure and demand, etc., just like in any other gas system - albeit you're probably designing components to work at colder ambient temperatures than usual!!

Apollo 13 incident at NASA - includes schematics of O2 bottle & layout of some system components in SM

command/service module components - includes O2 regulators

Expired auction for signed Apollo O2 suit system schematic

Schematic of Apollo O2 purge system

For UKL20 you can buy a Haynes Apollo Owners Manual
Haynes being a well known British firm specialising in publishing service manuals for cars, this is, apparently, a look at he hardware of hte rockets & modules that may have some info at the level you seem to required.

Lastly the Apollo Spacecraft Familiarisation manual (7.5mb download) is NASA's own overview and includes schematics and component layout diagrams for the Environmental Control System in section 3-9.
edit on 2-11-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   


Originally posted by Komodo

AFAIK they had 290 kg of LOX on the SM - as I linked to earlier - www.abovetopsecret.com... - where does your 45,000 gal come from??


here,


171590 litres . for the entire mission


simply converted to gals.. here


Where does that figure come from?

Ah - I see from the post below - you have confused gaseous oxygen with liquid.

Liquid oxygen occupies only 1/860th the volume that the same amount of O2 occupies as a gas - it is a very compact way of carrying it.

as I mentioned back when I did the calculations a few pages ago that you responded to

edit on 2-11-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Komodo
 


that was my calc for gaseous oxygen - LOX occupies a considerably smaller volume - thats the entire point of using it



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 638  639  640    642  643  644 >>

log in

join