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: 70
377
<< 67  68  69    71  72  73 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2010 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


FoosM, just keep digging it deeper and deeper, mate...pretty soon you will be too embarassed to show up!

Now....James Burke is brilliant. I have always enjoyed immensely his shows, especially his "Connections" series that he has done over the years.

YET, YOU in your seemingly infinite ability to completely MISUNDERSTAND anything and everything related to the space program, use a genuine video that he made, and STILL don't comprehend it??


Astonishing!





I pulled that little YT clip from the post that THIS post is referring....WHERE YOU QUITE CLEARLY inferred that the Astronaut's could have "escaped" (this in response to the question from jdub297) from the Apollo spacecraft from "LEO"...which you initially mis-typed as "ELO"... and which we all know is "Low Earth Orbit".

HOWEVER....your continued ignorance would be amusing, and quaint, were it not so blatantly obvious trolling behaviour....the video Mr. Burke presented was to show an escape method FROM THE GANTRY of the Apollo launch complex, while the entire rocket stack was ON THE GROUND, prior to lift-off.

How can you use a video that clearly shows this, and attempt to 'argue' such an incredibly WRONG point?
Boggles the mind, it does....

Furthermore, a substantial major FLAW in your notion of a "LEO" escape, to account for the Astronauts' (in your twisted World view) egress from the Apollo spacecraft seems to show a compleye and utter lack of knowledge about Earth orbit, and atmospheric entry. They would still need a method of entry from orbit, to include a suitable environment, and heat shield to protect them from the frictional heat!!!

This type of grasping, grasping, grasping at any straw is tiresome, and is either intentional (as an act of disruptive trolling behaviour) or indicates a complete disconnect, on your part, from any semblence of reality.

So, time to 'fess' up! ARE you mentally challenged? Or are you a punk?



[edit on 24 May 2010 by weedwhacker]




posted on May, 24 2010 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by c3hamby
One thing that you guys might look into is Richard Hoagland's Dark Mission Book.

He was there when the 'moon hoax' theory began.

According to Hoagland started in a roomfull of NASA employees and reporters, by JPL and NASA at a press conference.

Hoagland believes the reason JPL and NASA started this 'moon hoax' hoax was because they were trying divert attention away from what NASA found on the moon.

Dark Mission goes into more detail on this in his book.


While it pains me to say this, I trust hoagland on this one. If hoagland says there is no hoax, I believe him.

The master of "conspiracy" theories and cover up stories would have made a career of such a "hoax". If there were even the hint of one, he would have long ago come up with a million crazy theories to explain the who/whys/and when.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 10:05 AM
link   
In regards to the Apollo 1 fire killing all 3 astronauts and JW's video
www.youtube.com...
(This is part 7; however I really suggest watching it from part 1).

I have to admit at first I was a bit dubious that it could have been deliberate, but I found this old newspaper article from 1967. Titled 'Grissom Had Little Hope for Apollo Success'

news.google.com...
(It's two pages. It's at the bottom of this page, and continues at the top of the page on the right)

The points I find most interesting are...

1. The spacecraft manager of NASA's Manned Spacecraft Center told the media that "something like 20,000" failures of one kind or another had been logged in tests of the Apollo cabins and engine sections. (This is 2 years before Apollo 11)

2. Why did they pressurize the module with 100% pure oxygen? Couldn't it have been done with normal air?

3. What was the sour odour they smelt just before the comments 'If I can't talk to you five miles away, how can we talk to you from the moon?’ And then the subsequent blaze that killed them. (It’s all in the article)

This is the first I've heard of them smelling a sour odour. From what I can gather most people relate a sour odour to rotten egg gas.
This appears to be caused by Hydrogen Sulphide which is flammable, especially in a 100% pure oxygen environment.

It could be from either natural gas or an astronaut farting. (seriously)

They were concerned about the smell and the test was stopped. If one of them did fart, I really think they would have owned up to it. I think they would have been professional enough to do that, rather than the lengthy delays it caused, and the teams that had to go in and check the air.

Or, it could have been natural gas somehow getting into the capsule.

After awhile, they reported the smell went away, however at high concentrations; you eventually cease to smell this gas anymore even though it's present.

Anyway, read the 1967 newspaper article, it's really interesting.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


Surprised you ask such a question...thought you were serously studying all aspects of the manned space program?


2. Why did they pressurize the module with 100% pure oxygen? Couldn't it have been done with normal air?


IF you had looked into all the other programs (IE, Mercury and Gemini) you would have learned that the 'plugs-out' test was conducted then, too...with 100% O2.

What's more....you were aware that the 'normal' space craft pressurisation for an actual mission used 100% O2, weren't you?

You see...it was far easier (saved mass and weight) to build the spacecraft to only require lesser pressures. About 4-5 PSID. As opposed to a full Earth at sea level pressure of about 15 PSI. Because of that lower pressure, 100% O2 was needed, with NO nitrogen as 'filler', which is what makes up the majority of the air we breath on Earth.

Also, the lower PSID made the EVA suits less rigid...in fact, a suit designed to be pressurized with an oxygen/nitrogen mix at 14.7 PSI would have to be of different design, with articulating joints, and a way to assist the user in bending, such as at the knees, hips, wrists, fingers, etc.

There had been NO previous problems, and no concerns, about he O2 environment --- which is a problem only in hingsight, and tragically so.

Certainly they were AWARE of the dangers, but were convinced that designs had mitigated and eliminated them.

This tragedy was borne of an undetected flaw, and most likely was due to an unobserved/unimagined chaffing of wires' insulation somewhere.

Even TODAY chaffing can be a problem in modern airliners! Of course, they don't have the 100% O2 atmosphere, but fires are ALWAYS dangerous. Look at SwissAir 111 if you need an example....



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Claim #4

At the beginning of the Moonfaker Exhibit C Volume 1 (see www.youtube.com...) Jarrah White claims that in 1961 a group named the Apollo Simulation Project (ASP) was formed under the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) for the purpose of faking the moon missions.

He cites a book by Bill Kaysing, much of which can be found at:
books.google.com... o&hl=en&ei=Fqz6S96TF4H88Aa4nc3aCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=true

The book says the following regarding ASP:

Once the decision to simulate all moon voyages was made, NASA and the Defense Intelligence Agency moved swiftly. A code name was create: ASP (Apollo Simulation Project)



In 1961, the overall direction of ASP was coordinated under the aegis of a new federal entity, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA).



First, an agreement was obtained by DIA and ASP representatives working with and through the semi-secret Council on Foreign Relations. This agreement being a reciprocal one that woudl ensure silence on any relevatory Apollo information by major foreign powers.




PASP [Planning and Special Projects] was a most imporant arm of ASP. They ensured that fee if any questions would be asked. If questioners persisted, they found themselves deluged with offers they couldn't refuse. The limited number of recalcitrants found it hard to swim with formfitting cement tennis shoes...


The book also lists a "schedule and chronology of simulated moon flights" in the appendix. It is a list of comments on how each stage was to be faked.

Bill Kaysing was the company's head of technical publications for Rocketdyne during 1956 to 1963 and later for Rockwell International according to Wikipedia.

The fundamental flaw in the book is that there is no sources listed. Did Kaysing hear about ASP from an engineer at Rocketdyne? Or, did he get all his information about ASP from a bum at his local mental health clinic? Kaysing never seems to have claimed to actually have been a part of ASP, therefore, it is quite a mystery as to how he would know about. The entire book is not posted online, so perhaps there are some pages that would reveal an exceptionally trustworthy source for the information.

But just given only that information from Moonfaker Exhibit C Video 1 as well as the publicly listed pages on Google books I don't believe the video can be used to conclude anything.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthquest
Claim #4


The fundamental flaw in the book is that there is no sources listed. Did Kaysing hear about ASP from an engineer at Rocketdyne? Or, did he get all his information about ASP from a bum at his local mental health clinic? Kaysing never seems to have claimed to actually have been a part of ASP, therefore, it is quite a mystery as to how he would know about. The entire book is not posted online, so perhaps there are some pages that would reveal an exceptionally trustworthy source for the information.

But just given only that information from Moonfaker Exhibit C Video 1 as well as the publicly listed pages on Google books I don't believe the video can be used to conclude anything.


And you are correct. Kaysing is the one and only "source" for this nebulous "Apollo Simulation Project". He never did get around to offer any proof.

A few things to consider. Perhaps the most secretive project in American history was the Manhattan Project, the development and testing of the atomic bomb. Secrecy for it was beyond paranoid, yet when Truman told Stalin about the successful Trinity test (which had only been accomplished the day before), Stalin already knew! So much for secrecy.

Yet we are to believe that nobody else in this project has talked...

Second, given the way the government goes about keeping things secret, the very LAST thing they would have named a project to simulate the Apollo flights would be the "Apollo Simulation Project". That name is beyond silly. It would be like naming the Manhattan Project, the "Really Big Atomic Bomb Project".

[edit on 24-5-2010 by Tomblvd]



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Hope is not a total rehash of the same points.



It is.

The LLRV was never successfully landed.
----
Thats not what he said.



The Soviets were WAY ahead of us.
----
He didnt say that either.


There was no independent tracking of the Apollo missions.
----
well thats true.

It's awful stuff.
---
My heart bleeds for you.
Why dont you get into real anomalies he brought up?



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM
 


FoosM, just keep digging it deeper and deeper, mate...pretty soon you will be too embarassed to show up!


Furthermore, a substantial major FLAW in your notion of a "LEO" escape, to account for the Astronauts' (in your twisted World view) egress from the Apollo spacecraft seems to show a compleye and utter lack of knowledge about Earth orbit, and atmospheric entry. They would still need a method of entry from orbit, to include a suitable environment, and heat shield to protect them from the frictional heat!!!

This type of grasping, grasping, grasping at any straw is tiresome, and is either intentional (as an act of disruptive trolling behaviour) or indicates a complete disconnect, on your part, from any semblence of reality.

So, time to 'fess' up! ARE you mentally challenged? Or are you a punk?

[edit on 24 May 2010 by weedwhacker]


My God you got problems.
You have written this long response because you thought
I meant these astronots escaped LEO?




Even jdub297 could see I offered two options



your killing me dude!
You really thought I meant they escaped from LEO ??



oh stop it!



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Why dont you get into real anomalies he brought up?


Why don't you go to the actual thread where it's being discussed?

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by I_am_Spartacus

Originally posted by c3hamby
One thing that you guys might look into is Richard Hoagland's Dark Mission Book.

He was there when the 'moon hoax' theory began.

According to Hoagland started in a roomfull of NASA employees and reporters, by JPL and NASA at a press conference.

Hoagland believes the reason JPL and NASA started this 'moon hoax' hoax was because they were trying divert attention away from what NASA found on the moon.

Dark Mission goes into more detail on this in his book.


While it pains me to say this, I trust hoagland on this one. If hoagland says there is no hoax, I believe him.

The master of "conspiracy" theories and cover up stories would have made a career of such a "hoax". If there were even the hint of one, he would have long ago come up with a million crazy theories to explain the who/whys/and when.





Yeah, its easier to believe in flying saucers or glass cities on the moon then to come to grips that the anomalies that people have been finding are due to a hoax!

Come on people.
You have fell for one of the biggest mind programming stunt ever perpetrated on the world.
Your stuck between:
The moon landing must of happened (because Cronkite said so, I read it in my school book, etc
with
But there are soooo many anomalies in the photos, videos, transcripts, that we know NASA is lying!

So your brain comes up with something in between like, we did land on the moon but NASA is lying about what's there.

Have you ever considered that the whole UFO thing that the astronauts and NASA insiders talk about, etc are just dis-info tactics to distract you from the truth? To fill that gap that your brain is trying to logically work out?

Here Jay W. challenges Hoagland claims:
www.jayweidner.com...

Who knows, maybe Hoagland really believes this stuff



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Yes. The way you wrote your posts....


You really thought I meant they escaped from LEO ??


Wouldn't have put it past you, to attempt such a ridiculous claim, par for the course.

Naturally, you don't want anyone to look too closely at your OTHER red herrings (or is it "herrings" plural? Yes I think it is...).

THOUSANDS of eyes on every Apollo launch, to include a hungry, hungry media, hoping for the next 'scoop' should one occur....and you wish people to seriously entertain the idea that all three Astronauts somehow used the escape safety devices, unnoticed???

No, just keep throwing things up, and see what sticks...that's been your tactic for the entirety of this thread. Friend of WuWuu777 or somethin'?? Scoring points??

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

More glaring blunders and lies, from you:


But there are soooo many anomalies in the photos, videos, transcripts, that we know NASA is lying!


NO, there are not.

ONLY the uneducated, and rabidly 'married' to the "hoax" BS think so, and comes from ignorance.

Ignorance of many, many things...ignorance that is easily dispelled, just by a little research, or by PAYING ATTENTION to the wealth of knowledge and experience right here, in most ATS threads on the topic.


[edit on 24 May 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55


The points I find most interesting are...

1. The spacecraft manager of NASA's Manned Spacecraft Center told the media that "something like 20,000" failures of one kind or another had been logged in tests of the Apollo cabins and engine sections. (This is 2 years before Apollo 11)
----
Mind boggling how the first landing went off without a hitch.


2. Why did they pressurize the module with 100% pure oxygen? Couldn't it have been done with normal air?
----
Here is the thing, it doesnt matter why they did, what matters is that it offered an opportunity for creating an "accident". Like cars getting hit by trains, or plane crashes, heart attacks, falling off buildings, etc.




PLANNING
When the decision to assassinate has been reached, the tactics of the operation must be planned, based upon an estimate of the situation similar to that used in military operations. The preliminary estimate will reveal gaps in information and possibly indicate a need for special equipment which must be procured or constructed. When all necessary data has been collected, an effective tactical plan can be prepared. All planning must be mental; no papers should ever contain evidence of the oper ation.

Accidents.
For secret assassination, either simple or chase, the contrived accident is the most effective technique. When successfully executed, it causes little excitement and is only casually investigated.

Arson can cause accidental death if the subject is drugged and left in a burning building. Reliability is not satisfactory unless the building is isolated and highly combustible.

www.gwu.edu...
.

3. What was the sour odour they smelt just before the comments 'If I can't talk to you five miles away, how can we talk to you from the moon?’ And then the subsequent blaze that killed them. (It’s all in the article)

This is the first I've heard of them smelling a sour odour. From what I can gather most people relate a sour odour to rotten egg gas.
This appears to be caused by Hydrogen Sulphide which is flammable, especially in a 100% pure oxygen environment.
It could be from either natural gas or an astronaut farting. (seriously)
They were concerned about the smell and the test was stopped. If one of them did fart, I really think they would have owned up to it. I think they would have been professional enough to do that, rather than the lengthy delays it caused, and the teams that had to go in and check the air.
Or, it could have been natural gas somehow getting into the capsule.
----
Thats new interesting info.

The whole fire incident, whether or not you believe its murder, just goes to show you how many problems NASA had to deal with.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I joined the site after lurking for a few weeks, just to reply to this thread.
I want to thank yourself and the other knowledgable members in this thread for changing my opinion on the moonlandings.
I came to the site because I believe there are many things in this world that are "not as they seem" and took the position that if some things are "not as they seem" then potentially everything could be " not as it seems"
I've always believed that the moonlandings were faked, because I wanted to believe that. It was exciting to think there was a massive cover-up.
Having followed this massive thread I now firmly believe, thanks to the wealth of information posted, that we did go to the moon.
Thanks again.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


If I might reply to the Apollo I fire comment.

First of the ECS or Enviormental Control System made by AiReasech had failed with fire resulting twice during 1966. It was not known at the time that installation and contuniued removal of the unit from Apollo I CM caused damage to the plumbing encasing the coolant mixture and associated wiring trucking and harnesses.

Further more, the coolant used is extremely flammable. Now if leaked into the craft with 100% oxygen enviorment, with the spark that originated around the said ECS unit, was suspect in causing the fire.

Apollo I was an engineering nightmare. What I mean is no one could tell you what instrumentation was installed and to what specifications they were held to, or the weights of them!

All in all, without Apollo I, there would not have been a succesful moon landing.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by truthquest
Claim #4


And you are correct. Kaysing is the one and only "source" for this nebulous "Apollo Simulation Project". He never did get around to offer any proof.

A few things to consider. Perhaps the most secretive project in American history was the Manhattan Project, the development and testing of the atomic bomb. Secrecy for it was beyond paranoid, yet when Truman told Stalin about the successful Trinity test (which had only been accomplished the day before), Stalin already knew! So much for secrecy.

[edit on 24-5-2010 by Tomblvd]


Who cares if Stalin claimed if he knew
(You would really believe Stalin would tell the truth? And what is your source?)
Did he tell anyone? Did he tell American public? Announce it to the world?
If he knew, why didn't he warn the Japanese?

So was the Manhattan project a secret or not according to your definition of secret?



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by ppk55
 



Apollo I was an engineering nightmare. What I mean is no one could tell you what instrumentation was installed and to what specifications they were held to, or the weights of them!

All in all, without Apollo I, there would not have been a succesful moon landing.



Please elaborate.
How did the fire help solve their issues?
Did they solve what caused the fire in the first place?
How did they build the next one differently?



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Again, your lack of study shows the depth of our ignorance on this topic:


Originally posted by FoosM
Mind boggling how the first landing went off without a hitch.


I do genuinely wish you'd give it a rest, go out, and read same darn BOOKS! Would do you a world of good to get educated.

Just a wee bit out of a publication from "Apogee Books", the "NASA Mission Reports, Apollo 11":

Section 16.0: Anomaly Summary

16.1: Command and Service Modules

Service Propulsion Nitrogen Leak --
"During the LOI the gaseous nitrogen in the redundant service propulsion engine actuation system decayed from 2307 to 1883 psia....." Etc.

Cryogenic Heater Failure --
"....indicated that one of the two heater elements in oxygen tank 2 was inoperative." Etc.

Failure of Automatic Coil in One Thruster --
The minus-yaw engine in command module RCS 1 produced low and erratic...." Etc.

Loss of Electroluminescent Segment in Entry Monitor System --
"An electroluminescent segment on the numeric display of the entry monitor system would not illuminate." Etc.

Oxygen Flow Master Alarms --
"During the initial LM pressurization, two master alarms were activated..." Etc.

Indicated Closure of Propellant Isolation Valves --
"The propellant isolation valves on quad B of the SM RCS closed during CSM separation from the S-IVB...." Etc.

Service Module Entry --
"Photographic data were obtained of the SM entering the earth's atmosphere and disintegrating near the CM. Preflight predictions indicated the SM should have skipped out of the atmosphere and entered a highly eliptical orbit...." Etc.

(there is much more...)

16.2: Lunar Module

High Fuel Interface Pressure After Landing --
"During simultaneous venting of the descent propellant and supercritical helium tanks, fuel in the fuel/helium heat exchanger was frozen by helium flowing through the heat exchanger. Subsequent heat soakback from the descent engine caused expansion of the fuel trapped in the section of line between the HE and the engine shutoff valve. (see fig. 16-10)..." Etc.

Slow Cabin Decompression --
"The decompression of the cabin prior to EVA required longer than had been anticipated." Etc.

Voice Breakup During EVA --
"Voice-operated relay operation during EVA caused breakup of voice received by the Network." Etc.

Echo During EVA --
"A voice turnaround (echo) was heard during EVA. At that time, the LM was operating in a relay mode. Uplink from the S-band was processed and retransmitted to the two EVA crewmwn via the LM VHF transmitter..." Etc.

Broken Circuit Breaker Knob --
"The crew reported after EVA that the knob on the engine arm C/B was broken and two other C/Bs were closed......C/B guards will be installed on Apollo 12 and subsequent...." Etc.

(THIS was a big deal. Not sure how many people understand this, and what kind of C/B we're talking about here---will try to find pictures. They found that a pen was the right size to push in the breaker, even though the stem had broken off. VITAL to ignite the ascent engine!!)

There is a boatload of REAL information about Apollo....and ALL of these 'hoax' BS'ers don't have a clue, obviously.

"Kids" of a certain generation, apparently....or the occasional crackpot like Bill Kaysing and Robert Rene' --- and OF COURSE the idiot Bart Sibrel....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As promised, some examples of the types of circuit breakers used on Apollo (these are basically the same designs as used even today, on modern airplanes):



They are panel mounted, so only the black knob shows. The panel then has a label to indicate and name the C/B. When 'popped', or open, the pastic shaft below the know is white, and shows clearly. You can see the knobs have a slight lip, so a person can 'pull' out to 'open' the circuit...the primary way to 'safety' a system by removing any chance of power routing to it.

Here you can see them mounted in the panel of a small airplane, a homebuilt:



Here are some NASA technical drawings (in lieu of photos) of the LM interior:



And finally, a view of MY "office"....



SAME pic as above, but bigger size, better viewing:




[edit on 24 May 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



How did the fire help solve their issues?


NASA did not realize that 100% oxygen was dangerous as it was to the crew. Nor did they understand how much flammable material EXPLODES in 100% oxygen under pressure.


Did they solve what caused the fire in the first place?

If you read a post above the fire was suggestive to have started in the area by the enviornmental control system area, cause by arching of exposed wires in harnesses. The review of the BLOCK I CSM made the case for updating to the Lunar Landing configuration of the BLOCK II CSM, which called for new hardware and avionics.


How did they build the next one differently?


The learned that the spacecraft must function first, correctly and right, before any astronaut can survive the trip to the moon and back.

They didn't build it differently they got back on track: To send Men to the Moon and land, then return them safely, was the motto all along right?

NASA and contractors had lost that sight and clarity to meet deadlines associated with the end of the decade. The demand put lack of oversite into hardware flight readiness and certification. Which became a huge issue on the block II CSM program.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



And finally, a view of MY "office"....


BTW it sure is a nice office!


Nice find on the breakers! I had to bookmark that into my apollo section!

Thanks!



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
I'm not trying to take post away from this thread, but you guys seem to like to debate photos.. I have started a thread on Marcus Allen's take on the photos.. but no one has replied.. perhaps some of you would like to look at this info.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Before we get into the photos, on the other thread, I would like an explanation to the following:

Marcus Allen states that while the astros were ((supposedly) before anyone makes an issue of it) descending to the moon's surface you can clearly hear, for example Aldrin, updating NASA.

Here is the problem:
How was it possible to hear Aldrin, or any other astros, while the engine was blasting?

If they had on their suits:
1. How effectively could they have controlled the craft?
2. How could the suit work in a pressurized environment?

If they were not wearing their suit
1. How could you hear Aldrin so clearly?

How would you counter Mr. Allen?

Speaking of sound, here is a video showing the difference between going to LEO with Apollo vs the Shuttles:



...exploring the voices of NASA's pilots during launches. From Freedom 7 to Apollo 17...



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 67  68  69    71  72  73 >>

log in

join