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.

 

Faked images from our trip to the moon?

page: 21
37
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by daddio...I have done the reseach, I just post stuff like that to see what new crazy ideas you all will come up with, the cameras don't matter to me, it's the math and the trajectory and the science of "thrusters in space"...

Wait...So you have done the research, yet you still say that a rocket can NOT work in the vacuum of space.


That would be news to all of the space-faring nations that have controlled craft in space.


edit on 4/7/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)


Again, the rockets "aid" the craft getting into space, gyroscopes change the attitude and altitude, not "rockets".

In the vacuum of space there is no matter for the rockets' energy to be transmitted to for thrust. Please.



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by daddio
 


Don't believe a word of this, sorry:


I have a very good friend who worked on the saturn 5 rocket project and the landing module, even he believes we never went.


I mean.....you can't even describe the things properly. Do you even know which company (companies, actually) were contracted to build the Saturn series of vehicles? OR, the one that got the contract for the LM??

and....IF this "very good friend" (what, how old is he by the way? Think carefully, in case he's imaginary...).....this "person" hasn't disabused you yet, of your laughably mistaken statements about thrust from rocket engines in a vacuum?


Ya know.....a while back, year or two, was a member on ATS. Had sort of the same story, just a bit different. Appeared to struggle with the English language, maybe not a native speaker....so, doubt it was you. Anyhow, this (long-gone) member spent pages and pages trying to "argue" that the LM couldn't "land going backwards"....(his/her words).

Truly, truly remarkable, the ignorance displayed by that (former) member. Sad that there exist people unable to understand such rather basic principles. It is "rocket science" of course....but only the basics. The rest of what is called the "science" involves the much more complicated mathematics (which you alluded to as well) and there is NOT ONE VERIFIABLE SCIENTIST in hat field that does not understand; nor who would make any such claims as you (or the former member) are making.......



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Think about what a Thermos ® bottle does, and why it works.


That's just it WW, how does it know? Spooky.




I kid.



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by daddio
Again, the rockets "aid" the craft getting into space, gyroscopes change the attitude and altitude, not "rockets".

In the vacuum of space there is no matter for the rockets' energy to be transmitted to for thrust. Please.


The gases expanding from the engine push back against the craft, generating a force. No outside matter needed.

This is really basic mechanics. Here's a nice primer on how rockets work: www.howstuffworks.com...


Imagine the following situation: You are wearing a space suit and you are floating in space beside the space shuttle; you happen to have a baseball in your hand. If you throw the baseball, your body will react by moving in the opposite direction of the ball. The thing that controls the speed at which your body moves away is the weight of the baseball that you throw and the amount of acceleration that you apply to it. Mass multiplied by acceleration is force (f = m * a). Whatever force you apply to the baseball will be equalized by an identical reaction force applied to your body (m * a = m * a). So let's say that the baseball weighs 1 pound, and your body plus the space suit weighs 100 pounds. You throw the baseball away at a speed of 32 feet per second (21 mph). That is to say, you accelerate the 1-pound baseball with your arm so that it obtains a velocity of 21 mph. Your body reacts, but it weighs 100 times more than the baseball. Therefore, it moves away at one-hundredth the velocity of the baseball, or 0.32 feet per second (0.21 mph).



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by daddio
Again, the rockets "aid" the craft getting into space, gyroscopes change the attitude and altitude, not "rockets".

In the vacuum of space there is no matter for the rockets' energy to be transmitted to for thrust. Please.

How does the space station of the space shuttle make changes to its orbit? If you answer "gyroscopes", then tell me exactly how the gyroscope does that.

The ports you see in the nose of the space shuttle in this image :
upload.wikimedia.org...
are vernier thruster that are part of the space shuttle's "reaction control system". The shuttle uses these vernier thrusters while in space for attitude control and the fine-tune its position. I'm sure gyroscopes could be used to determine the space shuttle's attitude, but the thrusters change that attitude.


...Oh, and as weedwhacker pointed out, I truly doubt your friend worked to build both the Saturn V and the Lunar Module, because they were not built by the same contractor. The Lunar Module was designed and built by the Grumman Corporation, while the Saturn V was designed by NASA and Boeing, and (primarily) built by a company called North American Aviation.

And if your friend is telling you a rocket thruster won't work in space because there is no air to push against, then he is pulling your leg.


edit on 4/7/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by daddio
Again, the rockets "aid" the craft getting into space, gyroscopes change the attitude and altitude, not "rockets".


Not entirely correct.

Usually, gyroscopes are used in navigation systems to provide a stabilised platform for attitude reference. It isn't much different, actually, than the types of units in modern commercial airliners.

Your concept of gyros that physically cause the actual spacecraft attitude to make large changes? (You're describing 'torque' effect, or angular momentum) is something out of very hackneyed Science Fiction "B" movies of the 1950s. Such as the imagination of massive "flywheels" that were considered, by rather uneducated film writers back then, as "necessary". They over-complicated it.....

What you are probably thinking about are the sorts of stabilising gyroscope systems ..... that are designed for minor "tweaking" such as on the ISS....(Or, perhaps, just as in the SciFi movies of old, on some particular unmanned satellites, likely secret ones. That method would negate the need for large quantities of propellant to be available...as long as you had power, like electricity to keep the gyros spinning, you could use their angular momentum energy. BUT, mass is mass.....the amount of change, and rate of change, will vary depending on the size of the gyros, and the spacecraft itself).

Here, read up on the details:

CMG - Control Moment Gyroscope


The ISS employs a total of four CMGs as primary actuating devices during normal flight mode operation. The objective of the CMG flight control system is to hold the space station at a fixed attitude relative to the surface of the Earth. ...... CMGs absorb momentum in an attempt to maintain the space station at a desired attitude. The CMGs may eventually saturate (absorbing momentum to the point where they can absorb no more), resulting in loss of effectiveness of the CMG array for control. ....


Link to a photo and description of an actual CMG destined for a component of the ISS



Of course, contrary to what you also wrote....no, the gyros cannot alter the spacecraft altitude. Orbital altitudes are changed by THRUSTING in direction of motion to increase velocity (results in higher altitude...or 'apogee') or retro-thrust against direction, to decrease velocity, and lower the orbit.
_____

(**) You should watch the video at the end....over 30 minutes, but VERY informative about orbital mechanics....reality and science that is useful to learn.


_____


But, of course....actual physical attitude changes are made by the various thrusting engines. The RCS (Reaction Control System) was a fixture on the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo spacecraft....as well on the current Shuttle. They used different propellants, depending...but the purpose remains the same.

en.wikipedia.org...

That was a general overview, with some specific references. Here, the Shuttle:

The forward and aft RCS units provide the thrust for attitude (rotational) maneuvers (pitch, yaw and roll) and for small velocity changes along the orbiter axis (translation maneuvers).


VIDEO ---- (Highly recommend you watch it all the way. Maybe several times, it covers a lot of material....):




I wouldn't be surprised to learn that this is very possibly one of many training videos used by all current Space Shuttle astronauts......(or, maybe some others....like them so-called "secret astronauts"...LOL!!)










edit on 7 April 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Ha ha, yea, thsi conspiracy has been around for a while now. I think there's probably more evidence that it was fake now then that it was real. =9 Heck, for all we know, the moon may be something likely completely different from anythign in those recordings/photos. Don't you think it would be extremely hot with no atmosphere especially in those suits? You'd think they'd start getting burned with minutes or even seconds (despite the white color of the suit and/or tinted face shield). I didn't hear any reports of it being hot there or of any even small sun burns. =9



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Three
 


The suits provided cooling. LCG (Liquid Cooled Garmet) part of the EMU (Extravehicular Mobility Unit)

Connectors on EMU :




The Apollo Suits
Each of the suits, together with the backpack comprised what was virtually an independent spacecraft - lacking only an engine. The suit-and-backpack combination - called the Extravehicular Mobility Unit or EMU - kept him safe from the lunar vacuum, kept him cool by getting rid of excess body heat, provided him with oxygen for breathing, removed the carbon dioxide he exhaled, and gave him the means to talk with his crewmate and, through relays in the LM and on the Lunar Rover, the means to talk with Earth. The suit was also designed so that, despite the tendency of internal pressure to make it a rigid, unyielding balloon, the astronaut could move his arms and legs and flex his fingers. Necessarily, moving the suit against the internal pressure was hard work. Forearm fatigue from the constant use of the hands inhibited productivity, but at least it was possible to get work done......

Next to his skin, the astronaut wore a Liquid-Cooled Garment (LCG), a pair of 'long johns' embedded with a network of thin plastic tubes. The suits were made of an inner bladder covered by several layers of insulating aluminized Mylar which, collectively, not only held pressure but also provided thermal protection when the astronauts were out in the direct sun. In addition, the outer layers of the suits were strong enough to resist tearing and abrasion as the astronauts crawled in and out of the LM, carried equipment, jumped onto their Rover seats, brushed up against rocks, and sometimes even fell. At stomach and lower chest levels, the suit was equipped with connectors for water hoses, oxygen hoses, and a communications cable. The hose connectors each had a ring lock and, embedded in it, a ring-locking mechanism ingeniously called a "lock-lock". There were also dust covers over each of the connectors....

The hoses ran from the connectors around to the backpack or PLSS (Portable Life Support System) - pronounced "pliss" - which contained communications and telemetry gear, tanks of oxygen and feedwater, a fan to move the oxygen through the suit, a pump to move the closed-loop water through the Liquid Cooled Garment,

Indeed, the astronauts could divide their lunar stays into something resembling three normal 24-hour days - four hours of EVA preps, eight hours of work outside the spacecraft, four hours of post-EVA activities, and eight hours of rest - and, thereby, minimize the fatigue and stress with which they had to cope


www.hq.nasa.gov...

That is if you are actually concerned with learning about history or just being coy.


edit on 7-4-2011 by kinda kurious because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Temperature extremes are misleading when one learns the numbers put into a sentence, what is glossed over is those extremes require two earth weeks to reach those extremes, and those measurements are describing the surface temperatures, and not the ambient air temperatures because you see the moon seriously lacks air to transfer the heat from solar saturation of the 'high noon' numbers. Besides that's why those moon walks took place in the moon's 'early morning' before even the surface temperatures rose to those ridiculous numbers you read somewhere, we simply weren't there during those high readings.

That's the short answer, I can provide the long answer if you are interested, and not simply throwing out cyber jabs for heightened reactions.

I also heard the suits had air conditioners, and lets see, inflatable ambient air insulation, as well as what we refer to on earth as a film like 'sun glasses', proving to be 97% effective resisting certain solar radiation. A cool invention.



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by daddio
 

daddio --

This is how a rocket is propelled. There is no need for the thrust coming out of the nozzle to have matter to push against, because technically that is NOT the force that is making the rocket move. That is why a rocket works just fine in the vacuum of space.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c3c311648c22.jpg[/atsimg]


edit on 4/7/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by FutureThinker
Did anybody read the story at the OPs link, From what I read, Godwin says he has explanations for the anomolies in the Moon Landings.


But his strongest argument is that all Apollo missions were tracked by the Jodrell Bank Observatory in England, a privately owned facility — and the Russians.

"If anybody had a vested interest in saying it was faked, you'd think it was them," he said.

"Even the Russians sent letters of congratulations saying: 'Well done'!"



Peace
...


This post wins the thread.



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


'Terminal velocity' of our standard liquid fueled rocket engines has always been a speculative curiosity of mine and I find two camps (and Camp C of reason) on the subject of, "how fast could it go if fuel was infinite"?

Camp A says, any thrust of any object in motion in space regardless of the speed it is going is going to increase its speed.

Camp B says an object in motion in space can only increase its speed with a thrust exiting opposite of its travel at a greater velocity than it is already traveling.

Camp C sees there are limits at the extreme due to basic relativity, because mass increases with extreme speed and requires greater energy to propel than at lower speeds. This idea is demonstrated by strapping a rocket on an asteroid in an effort to change its direction, it wont happen due to inertia and the obvious rotation of the object but if it was at rest, there is a limit to what force could disturb it's rest, and that's where speed of mass comes in.

So where does this leave us? Well logic would indicate Camp A is forgetting what happens to matter at the extreme (speed), and Camp B is forgetting that no matter how fast you are going in the vacuum of space, you can toss up a tennis ball (if you have a gravity), and it would go up and right back down in your hand, at the same speed you are going, thus it is already going your speed as if you are both at rest, if you throw it ahead of you it's now going faster than you. You've just increased its speed yourself with little effort.

A rocket engine is this (Camp A) idea pointed backwards, pushing you from it's relatively stationary place already traveling as fast as you. In theory, you will increase speed if you point a hairspray can backwards (though minute) but that is the Camp A logic. Camp B says the spray has to have more backwards force than your forward momentum has, which doesn't make sense in a vacuum, "So Ed, do you expect the spray to race right back at you because you are going so fast already, well Jim, does it have the power to propel my mass?"

Camp C knows neither Camp A and Camp B have it all quite figured out. Camp C knows that the velocity of the backwards thrust isn't the 'terminal velocity' that engine is capable of, because its trajectory is not its speed it is going, it is at rest going forward so if you turn it back on it adds velocity to its momentum. The same way that if you hit an asteroid it would change your speed, drastically! But Camp C realizes that up to a certain velocity of travel the rocket is enjoying, there is a point it cannot add to increase the speed its enjoying.

That is a figure that I struggle with, exactly how fast could our liquid fuel rocket engine propel a craft if fuel was infinite, there has to be a terminal velocity figure, otherwise the engine in theory could break the speed of light by having the ability to add anything to its momentum, and we know that is impossible.

We could have gone to the moon faster than we did if we could have lifted a greater fuel capacity (and needing it to slow down also), how much faster is a hard thing to research and get definitive figures for. An answer grinds my gears.

Pardon my ramble.



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by joshnichols189
 


Yes posts like these, and there were many of them on this thread stating the same thing, are ignored by the conspiracists, and never addressed. Its a very typical thing to get cherry picking in conspiracy threads, though the conspiracists demand that their questions are addressed. They live on one way streets with no outlets.
edit on 7-4-2011 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 08:18 PM
link   
While I believe that the Americans (not we!) did land on the moon I have to confess that I believe an awful lot of the supposed pictures taken by Apollo have been manipulated and retouched. I think NASA went to the moon because they knew there was something there worth investigating. The Chronological Catalog Of Reported Lunar Events which detailed over 560 sightings of lights and clouds on the moon dating back to 1540, and the follow up Operation Moonblink which was a year long study beginning in September 1965 which noted a further 28 sightings of anomalous lunar activity, shows that NASA was actively interested in these events. Even NASA scientist Farouk El Baz has gone on record as saying that they (NASA) were looking for something!
It seems to me that lurking behind the ludicrous Moon Hoax theories there may be a much larger conspiracy that is far more interesting and important than whether or not we made it to the moon or not. The real question may be who beat us to the moon and just how long have they been there!?



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   
The real answer is that the moon is largely a solid rock body in cold space with a slow rotation that bakes and freezes it's surface temperatures from the sun beyond the capacity of any surface life to endure. If you don't believe we can measure the geological makeup of the interior of the moon's structure from right here on earth than you should also find it hard to fathom how we get silica circuitry to act as computers to aid our calculations, or develop 'The Bomb'. You see the physics we know in applications, 'works'. It's not just a 'theory', its applied science.



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Three
Ha ha, yea, thsi conspiracy has been around for a while now. I think there's probably more evidence that it was fake now then that it was real. =9 Heck, for all we know, the moon may be something likely completely different from anythign in those recordings/photos. Don't you think it would be extremely hot with no atmosphere especially in those suits? You'd think they'd start getting burned with minutes or even seconds (despite the white color of the suit and/or tinted face shield). I didn't hear any reports of it being hot there or of any even small sun burns. =9


This is not correct. See this thread for a detailed explanation:

How Hot is it on the Moon?

Hope this helps.



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Saint Exupery
 


THAT is an awesome read ! I'm sorry I missed it on the first go round.

A wealth of info (porous plate sublimator notwithstanding LOL) especially explanation of desert garb and reflectivity bearing on heat absorption / dissipation.
A thread like THAT gets only 20 stars (I added one) yet if Paris Hilton sneezes it gets 100. :shk:


edit on 7-4-2011 by kinda kurious because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


Agreed....!!, and thanks for the link, as I stated on the thread you brought to my awareness.



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I have laughed at your posts so many times. My 'friend is 67, he is retired and sick of the BS. He lived in Texas and worked in Houston. He was involved in analysis. He was responsible for analizing the data and making changes. He worked on Both the LM and the Saturn 5 project, when he completed his work on the Saturn 5 stuff he went to florida and worked there for a while.

Yes, I work with math all day long, I have run models of the trajectory of the craft and the distance traveled and speed required. What have you done?

Thing is, the math doesn't work out for a three ay trip s claimed and the odds of missing the moon completely are so great it is quite incredible. 1/6th gravity and the speed the craft was traveling..... would never happen. The odds they would over-shoot the moon are so great, if they failed and shot past past it, how would that have looked. Remember, it was 1969.

You people crack me up. I believed at one time too, then I slowly learned the truth and met people who could back up what others were claiming. Found it quite interesting. Then after sitting down with a computer model and seeing what it would have taken, in 1969, no way. The "Tetris' satellite project was one of the greatest blunders. But who really cares anymore, we didn't go, never will go. I am certain of that.



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by nataylor
 


More BS, that is not how it works. The rocket is producing "energy" in the form of thrust, but if it has nothing to push against, resistance, then it is wasted energy. WHY do people continue to not get it? In earths atmosphere we have molecules in the air, and when we have displacement, then we have an equal and opposite reaction. But in the VACUUM of space, the energy is a total LOSS!! VACUUM!!!!!! SUCKS!!!! Get it, there is no matter for the reaction to have effect. Man I wish more people would actually STUDY physics and then post findings. Go to a lab and watch. I worked in a lab, in zero gravity is different from VACUUM!!!! Void of ANY substance or matter, again, the "rocket" would have to have both a fuel supply and oxygen supply. If it is an electron thruster it would still NEED atoms to push off of. It is not a displacement issue. The rocket ejects a substance but it is all internal, there is nothing outside in front, it is at the rear, it is not replacing space in front. Man that is the dumbest idea I have ever heard. Not that that is what you meant but others have refered to that. What a joke.

Once again also, the voyager 2 space probe was traveling at over 68,000 miles an hour when it left our solar system, it could travel that fast because there was NO DRAG in the form of molecules that worked against it, nothing to displace, in an atmosphere you have to move molecules OUT OF THE WAY to move forward, when there are NO MOLECULES or ATOMS in the air, you can travel at the speed of light if you can get going that fast. You reach terminal velocity and then some, it is basicly limited by the force you can get to get moving. BUT YOU NEED A FORCE TO GET MOVING, and a "rocket" IS NOT going to do it, that is why they use the "slingshot effect". Godddamnit already, get a freakin education before you post crap.

Again, we didn't go, can't go, never WILL go. Sad reality but true. Please, for the love of god,move on!!!




top topics



 
37
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join