Faked images from our trip to the moon?

page: 22
37
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by daddio
 



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!!


Come on..
The old every reaction has an equal and opposite reaction still stands..
The rockets fire exhaust/mass in one in one direction (at very high velocity) and the equal and opposite reaction moves the craft..
Even airplanes on earth do NOT need something to push on..
They need some atmosphere to create lift, not thrust..




posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by daddio
Man I wish more people would actually STUDY physics and then post findings.
On that we can agree. Would you care to post any of your sources for where you came up with this idea that Newton's third law somehow doesn't apply in space? Any textbooks or reference websites you can link to? Anything? I'd love to know what you are studying that gave you this deeply flawed understanding of mechanics.



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Jets need atmosphere to breath their chemical reaction that creates thrust, rockets take their atmosphere with them into space to ignite their fuel, liquid oxygen. One might find interesting reading to learn how the jet engines worked as ramjets in altitude on the retired SR-71 Blackbirds, (The fastest air breathing atmospheric jets ever flown). You may discover how the Blackbirds made use of compressing the little air up there with the conical intakes that economized the fuel burned, and extended their distance at their better equilibrium state around Mach 3.2, than at lower slower cursing.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


Yeah, planes etc utilise air coming in but do not need air at the back to push against..
That was the point I was making to the other poster..

I've watched a few docos on the SR-71 Blackbirds..
Awesome beast for it's time...
Watching it leak fuel on the tarmac was a bit scary though..



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by daddio
 



Originally posted by daddio
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.


Hiya Daddio,

I sincerely enjoyed your story and while admittedly my technical intellect on this topic might not be on equal par with yours, my story is polar opposite. Conversely I stumbled on to ATS as a former HOAX believer some 4 years ago and had done a fair amount of personal research prior to that. Having lived in the Space Coast just after Apollo and during infancy of Shuttle I knew many KSC and NASA engineers and family. They shared much knowledge and first hand accounts of overcoming the numerous obstacles of the Apollo program which perplexed me by the subsequent constraints of our manned space flights to low earth orbits by the Shuttle.

I began to doubt the official story for many years until I found my way here. But as I continued to learn and grow it was the overwhelming body of solid, erudite evidence presented by astute members such as Weedwhacker and several others that caused me to reconsider my stance. Faced with seemingly insurmountable odds and driven by the ingenuity and passion of the human spirit I came to believe the official story. (with the caveat that photos were staged, doctored and manipulated but from a pure Public Relations perspective.) Aside from the volumes of hard data and evidence, it was the notion that among the thousands of "conspirators" there is NO HARD PROOF of hoax but only wild theory, supposition and fantastic speculation. For those reasons I acquiesced.

In my field of film and video production some high profile projects are often confidential among competitors and competing brands. There are numerous opportunities during shooting, lab work and post production for copies to be made or concepts leaked and it often happens. However, I know of no such "whistle blowers" from NASA or by production crews or technicians and support staff which would be in the thousands. No death bed confessions, widows finding old pictures or rehearsal footage from yard sales. Zilch. (Inasmuch as the argument could be made toward secrecy from national security level, most of the technicians were Civil Service and not military.) Sure there are secretaries and low echelon workers who parrot hearsay but no tangible proof.

As is often said truth is stranger than fiction and although you've run "computer models and simulation" there is no match for the teams of scientists, engineers and astronauts with sheer guts, bravery and dead reckoning. Sorry for my life story, but THAT is why I believe.



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by daddio
 



More BS.....


Yup. Everything you write, when it involves rocketry.


The rocket is producing "energy" in the form of thrust, but if it has nothing to push against, resistance, then it is wasted energy.


You have been proven wrong, countless time, in this very thread. What's the problem with comprehension, here?

The basic rocket reaction does NOT need "air to push against"!!! You are flat out wrong. You worked at Cox/Sanwa...but, how in the world did you get such BAD understanding?? I have a LOT of experience with the products made by those companies...before and after they merged. Been in many hobbies, from starting with control-line airplanes, to R/C etc. Had a full career as an airline pilot....I think I have a solid foundation of knowledge, experience and understanding. How can you have "played" with, say....model rockets and STILL not understand their function?


(I am betting you didn't even bother to watch the video I found for you? It would EXPLAIN a lot to you, about the reality of physics, and astrophysics. You sorely need it. Alternately, maybe a local community college offers classes? You should look into it, it is desperately needed).


Because, here is where your presumptions are grossly mistaken:


In earths atmosphere we have molecules in the air, and when we have displacement, then we have an equal and opposite reaction.


The air is NOT a solid!! Use your hand, and push against the air.....use all your strength. Did you fall out of your chair? NOW, push against the closest wall. See the difference? A rocket, IN AIR, is NOT "pushing" against the air, in order to create the motion of trajectory. The air does not resist sufficiently....in FACT, it is displaced under the much higher pressures and thus, forces, of the rocket's exhaust gases.

It is the MASS OF THE PROPELLANT that is doing the "pushing". EVEN when the propellant is in form of gas.....(yes, I know, this is where it confuses you)....because, though not a "solid", it IS under pressure, and wants to EQUALIZE that pressure. In its haste to do that, it seeks an "escape" route....if there is none, then the pressure remains static and equal, within. ONCE there is an opening, then all that pent-up energy will escape through it, and in so doing, IT wll push back against the (solid) walls of its containment....THAT produces the thrust!!

(Experiment: Find a balloon. Blow it up. Do not tie the end closed. Release. Question: What happens?)



Here, again....a forehead/slap moment of non-clarity:


I worked in a lab, in zero gravity is different from VACUUM!!!!


Huh??
YOU "worked" in a zero-gravity lab? On Earth?? Where is this mythical "lab"?



What a joke.


Yes, sorry. This misunderstanding you constantly labor under, is inhibiting your comprehension.


Explain how the Space Shuttle maneuvers, when on orbit please. Do you know? (AND, no....the Shuttle does NOT have CMG units installed).


As basic as it gets:

QUESTION:

How can you change your heading in space without air?

ANSWER from Eric Hammer on April 1, 1997:

Since space is a near vacuum. Without air, there is no way to generate aerodynamic lift. The Space Shuttle has 46 different rocket engines. Two of these are called the OMS (orbital maneuvering system) engines and are able to move in different directions to help guide the Space Shuttle. The other 44 engines are smaller and do not move. By firing different combinations of these engines, the Space Shuttle is able to move in any direction.


HERE is a Shuttle on orbit, just prior to docking with the ISS. Explain how it performs this "pitch-over" maneuver, for the visual inspection performed ever since the Columbia tragedy?:



What is allowing the crew to make the vehicle change attitude? IN A VACUUM!!!


Since the Space Shuttle is NOT "fake" (oh, boy....if you try to make that argument, then there is no hope...)....since the Shuttle is not "fake", there is NOTHING at all to support claims that Apollo was "fake" either.




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....


Actually......no "appreciable" drag. There are, however, atoms and molecules in space....the vacuum is never "perfect".



..... you can travel at the speed of light if you can get going that fast.


Near speed of light.....Einstein's calculations should go on your curriculum of studies, right after orbital mechanics and astrophysics. Mass increases with velocity, so @ the theoretical real light speed ('c') the calculations show an "infinite" amount of mass for the vehicle, so it is never "possible" to achieve.....however, again......you misunderstand that space is NOT "empty"....and even at a substantial fraction of 'c' collisions with even small motes of dust could be catastrophic....unless you have some sort of shield or deflector.


SO.....heed your own words, dude:


....get a freakin education before you post crap.



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Here's a video of an orbital maneuvering system (OMS) thruster burn. The shuttle is in orbit, in a virtual vacuum, and their rocket thrusters can still move the shuttle (OMS burn begins at the :05 mark in the video):



'daddio' --

If you truly believe that a rocket can't work in the vacuum of space, and that the rest of us who believe it can are simply uneducated, could you please point us to the sources of your education that details why Newtons third law of motion would not allow a rocket to work in a vacuum?

You seem to be saying that we are all being totally ignorant to an obvious fact that would prove your belief. If so, then it should not be hard to show us links to the scientific principles that explain why a rocket thruster would not work in a vacuum. We showed you links that explain why a rocket would work in a vacuum, now it's your turn to show us links and scientific reasons to believe otherwise.

...although I'm beginning to believe that you might be pulling our collective leg

edit on 4/8/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Oddly enough, that video looks deceptively like CGI. The "flash, just does not seem to appear correctly, looks like a cartoon almost.

My question to all of you is this, if "rockets" work so well in space, then why would there be a need for the "slingshot" effect. Point the vehicle where you want it to go and fire a rocket "booster", with no resistance, the vehicle would accelerate until you could somehow slow it. This is where gyroscopes work best. But they woudl need to be quite large.

I have read most of Isaac Newtons work, he worked on earth, did not know anything about space. Einstien also worked on earth and "observed" space. and using his imagination and math, he came up with some pretty crazy ideas, or so people thought he was crazy. Am I? Could be.

But I have neither the time nor would I use "webpages" to back up my ideas. I believe none of what I read and half of what I see and do my own work to come to the conclusions I do. Until we are all in space and can see it and feel it for ourselves, it is just speculation. But I know for a fact we did not land on the moon in 1969. No one is going to change my mind about that. And so I leave you now to your Star Trek and Star Wars fantasy.

Peace



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by daddio

My question to all of you is this, if "rockets" work so well in space, then why would there be a need for the "slingshot" effect.
Because it's an efficient use of energy. Why waste propellant when you can get gravity to help out?



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by daddio
...My question to all of you is this, if "rockets" work so well in space, then why would there be a need for the "slingshot" effect. Point the vehicle where you want it to go and fire a rocket "booster", with no resistance, the vehicle would accelerate until you could somehow slow it...

Fuel is weight. That is a huge limitation of chemical rockets.


Theoretically, if you carry a large enough fuel supply, you could go very fast and very far. As it is, though, it takes too much energy to get a chemical-fueled spacecraft with that large a fuel tank into space (i.e., off of the gravity well that is the Earth). The craft we have in space are very limited supply of maneuvering fuel.

That's why it is potentially interesting news if there are large amounts of water on the moon. With water on the moon, liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen fuel could potentially be made there, and with the Moon's 1/6 gravity, spacecraft with larger fuel supplies could be launched (or at least fuel-up) at the Moon. Of course, by the time we have the ability to build LH2 and LOX plants on the Moon, we may have not be using chemical rockets anymore.

Another solution to the fuel-weight problem would be to have a different kind of propulsion other than chemical-fueled rockets. Electrical propulsion systems such as an ion thruster works more efficiently on smaller amounts of fuel (i.e., far less weight)....

...However, you would claim that an ion thrust engine does not work in the vacuum of space (you would still argue that there's "nothing to thrust against").

edit on 4/8/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by daddio

My question to all of you is this, if "rockets" work so well in space, then why would there be a need for the "slingshot" effect.
Because it's an efficient use of energy. Why waste propellant when you can get gravity to help out?
some times i'm surprised by ats members answers... however rockets do work in space ,i thought this was common knowledge ..the use of thrusters are there, only for minor adjustments in flight paths ect..anyway the bigger question was ..did uncle sam make it to the moon and back..well nasa are saying they landed on the moon 6 times......Nine Apollo missions went to the Moon, of which six landed. Each carried three people, two of whom landed on the Moon while one stayed with the command and service module in lunar orbit. The crews for each mission were as follows:

Apollo 8 (first lunar flight, orbital only, no lunar module): Frank Borman, Jim Lovell, Bill Anders.

(Apollo 9 was an earth orbit flight test of the LM)

Apollo 10 (lunar orbital test of lunar module, no landing): John Young, Tom Stafford, Gene Cernan.

Apollo 11 (first lunar landing): Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, Mike Collins. Armstrong and Aldrin landed.

Apollo 12: Pete Conrad, Al Bean, Dick Gordon. Conrad and Bean landed.

Apollo 13: Jim Lovell, Fred Haise, Jack Swigert. Lovell makes his second lunar flight and would have landed with Haise if not for the oxygen tank explosion that crippled the spacecraft. No landing was made.

Apollo 14: Alan Shepard, Ed Mitchell, Stu Roosa. Shepard and Mitchell landed.

Apollo 15: Dave Scott, Jim Irwin, Al Worden. Scott and Irwin landed.

Apollo 16: John Young, Charlie Duke, Ken Mattingly. John Young makes his second lunar flight and lands on the Moon with Charlie Duke.

Apollo 17: Gene Cernan, Jack Schmitt, Ron Evans. Cernan makes a second lunar flight and lands with Schmitt. Cernan is the last man on the surface of the Moon.

So, if you count up, you'll find 12 men walked on the Moon, while another 12 orbited or flew by it. Three men went to the Moon twice, two of whom walked on its surface on their second trip. Of the men listed above, six have since died. They are Pete Conrad, Jack Swigert, Alan Shepard, Stu Roosa, Jim Irwin and Ron Evans.....thats a lot of mouths to keep quiet ...but there is a easier way to prove one way or another..a simple hd mapping of the moon would prove or disprove uncle sams claims of been on the old cheese ...



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by sitchin
...but there is a easier way to prove one way or another..a simple hd mapping of the moon would prove or disprove uncle sams claims of been on the old cheese ...

Well, we have these images:
www.universetoday.com...

However, I would think that no matter what resolution photo you have, someone will claim the picture is a fake.



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by sitchin
 


Mankind has yet to view, photograph, or map the moon at a high enough resolution to make out the tiny hardware left behind to very recognizable detail, though NASA still has the best images, at even better resolutions than the orbiting Japanese Selene Kaguya moon mapper. Its only 100 km above the surface and only has a resolution of 10 meters per pixel. I think the NASA images are a little better but Selene Kaguya does prove a striking reality that the moon landings couldn't be faked, view this video.

edit on 8-4-2011 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


Yes -- I agree that the way Apollo 15's pictures of Mount Hadley exactly matching the data from Selene is extremely good evidence that Apollo 15 was really there.

However, as always, someone will claim that NASA could have got the 3D data back in the 1960s and built an exact replica of Mount Hadley back on Earth as part of the Apollo 15 Moon. But I would think it would be easier just to go to the friggin' Moon.



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Hmmmmm....you may be right, some may make such claims, of ignorance:


....someone will claim that NASA could have got the 3D data back in the 1960's....


However, I would then challenge any such claims, to show the technology that existed, back then, to resolve in such detail....the Lunar terrain in three dimensions. Given the "caveat" that (according to "HOAX" enthusiasts) no Apollo still photos and videos from EVAs after landings were truly available.

OH, the scripts these "hoax"-nuts keep writing become ever more convoluted, as they attempt to pigeon-hole the disparate "theories" into one cohesive and verifiable concept.....

edit on 8 April 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   
Looks to me like the flag is pointed in the same direction in both pictures. But the position of the camera has moved. Also in the second picture, it "appears the flag is pointed awat from the camera at the rover, but it's really pointing toward the camera, just an optical illusion really.

I used to be a big "Moon Hoax" believer, but after really digging into it. The diverging, and converging shadows, the "C rock"(LOL), the moving flag, no crater beneath the lander, secondary light sources, ect, ect. ect. Everyone single one of these supposed smoking guns that prove the Moon landings were hoaxed, can be reproduced(many have been), or can be explain with simple reasoning.

I mean come on..enough with the C rock. That IS NOT how they set up props on a movie set anyway.

Yes yes, the whole HOAX idea made for a great movie in "Capricorn 1". But I think some people watched it too many times. Or maybe no enough times, to realize how implausible it is to fake something on that sort of scale, with everyone watching and waiting. VERY different from the "suprise" that 9/11 was.

But I do believe now, we did in fact go to the moon; after haveing looked at ALL of the facts.

I'm a HUGE Conspiracy nut, but some conspiracies do get debunked pretty well, and this is one that has gotten debunked on nearly every level.

The only question left is when did we actually 1st walk on the moon? (I mean we really HAD to beat the Russians), and knowing NASA....well anything is possible. But I'm pretty sure we eventually did go to the moon. So maybe both sides are right, maybe the first one was a Hoax, but we did eventually make it there shortly after. But then again wasn't the first landing tracked by several astronomers and scientists from several countries like England and Russia to make sure we did in fact land on the moon? I dunno.

Also how many times have we gone, and why did we stop going, that is IF we did stop going.

I think we're mining the crap out of the far side for Helium 3 right now personally. Also think we have some decent sized bases and other structures we built on there as well.

I also believe there are Ancient Stuctures on the moon put there not by man, well not by this incarnation of man. But thats for another topic.



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by Illustronic
 


Yes -- I agree that the way Apollo 15's pictures of Mount Hadley exactly matching the data from Selene is extremely good evidence that Apollo 15 was really there.
However, as always, someone will claim that NASA could have got the 3D data back in the 1960s and built an exact replica of Mount Hadley back on Earth as part of the Apollo 15 Moon. But I would think it would be easier just to go to the friggin' Moon.


Well if you believe the hoax then that's not quite true.
Most believe they only created a stage with a foreground and the background images were a projection or blue screen concept..
Therefore they didn't have to recreate the mountains..
They would however need good pics..



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Well if you believe the hoax then that's not quite true.
Most believe they only created a stage with a foreground and the background images were a projection or blue screen concept..
Therefore they didn't have to recreate the mountains..
They would however need good pics..


But depending on exactly where the Apollo 15 astronauts were standing when they took pictures, Mount Hadley (as expected) looked slightly different in each image, due to differences in perspective. For example, the mountains would look slightly different if photographed from two locations, say, 50 to 100 meters or so away from each other.

If, as some suggest, these mountains were just a projection on a bluescreen or perhaps just a background image, then that projected image would look the same no matter from which perspective it was being viewed. After all, it's just a static 2D image. How could you get a change of perspective from a projected image? But in the case with the Apollo 15 pictures, the perspective of the background changes slightly, just like it should if the background was real and not a projection, as seen here in this post (the three images at the bottom of the post):

www.abovetopsecret.com...

What's funny about these pictures is that hoax believers used it as evidence that they claim supported the hoax theory, asking "why is the background identical while the foreground is not?" However, the hoax believers must have never bothered to overlay the backgrounds (as was done in this post), because if they did, they would clearly see that the backgrounds are NOT identical, but are actually slightly different due to being viewed from slightly different perspectives in each image.

edit on 4/8/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


True about the variation..

Yes I saw those posts..
It was a matter of perspective..
Many believed they were small hills close to the astronauts when in fact they were larger and many kms away..



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


But, alas, the most stubbornly closed minded hoax believers would simply claim that NASA used a multitude of backdrops, each one looking practically identical, but really just a bluescreen projection of the mountains from a slightly different perspective...
...which would be a ridiculous claim.





top topics
 
37
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join