Faked images from our trip to the moon?

Keep in mind that the advent of computer imagery didn't occur until the late 70's when George Lucus hired the Knoll brother's to champion the method of what many conspiracists call, CGI. Star Wars one special effects development also led to the genesis of the development of Photoshop 1.0, as you can see Thomas Knoll is still the first credited on Photoshop's about.

There was no way possible for NASA to have data or even image the data of a moon surface perspective without a surface transmission of said data. Simple as that!





Ah yes, another random Saturday morning with coffee and ATS, I'll be OK soon.

reply to post by Illustronic


Yeah you have a point, but we all know NASA and the military get stuff to play with well before the general public does

I'm mistaken about what I thought about the Knoll brothers, they were not part of the Star Wars ILM team, though it's stated the ILM team employed a 'bunch of college students', of which the Knoll brothers were too young to be college students at that time, John would have started college after Star Wars was released, 4 years behind me.

Sorry for the error, I'm now fully coffeed up.

double post.

It does seem odd we made that many round trips to the moon without a single micro meteor disaster. I believe the shuttle orbits low Earth. Micro meteors burn up once they hit the Earth's atmosphere.

Here's another thing. If we've been already then why would it take us another decade to go again? We went with arguably 1950's technology. But for some reason we can't go in the next decade with 2011 technology?

WASHINGTON - NASA briefed senior White House officials Wednesday on its plan to spend $100 billion and the next 12 years building the spacecraft and rockets it needs to put humans back on the Moon by 2018.

Back to the Moon

reply to post by LosLobos


That article you linked is six years old. Those plans have been cancelled. We can no more build an Iowa-class battleship than we can a moonship. That is to say we could, but it would be expensive and time-consuming to rebuild the tools that make the tools that make the tools. We don't go because most people don't see a strong enough need to justify the expense or the risk.

Originally posted by LosLobos
Here's another thing. If we've been already then why would it take us another decade to go again? We went with arguably 1950's technology. But for some reason we can't go in the next decade with 2011 technology?

I don't think all aspects of modern day program were totally fleshed out.

It's not "off the shelf" ready technology. Example, Orion parachute "glitch":



Just sayin.'

Originally posted by LosLobos
It does seem odd we made that many round trips to the moon without a single micro meteor disaster. I believe the shuttle orbits low Earth. Micro meteors burn up once they hit the Earth's atmosphere.

Micrometeors are a problem for the shuttle/space station also. These orbit above 99.9% of the atmosphere (by volume). The shuttle and space station have the additional problem of man-made space debris.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


But the point remains, not one micro meteor accident during all those round trips to the moon? Thats like early settlers never losing a ship in all those crossings.

I guess you can say the vastness of space and the size of the module may not have been a problem for micro's. But that's a big risk to take if you ask me. It just seems odd to me we never lost anyone on these trips to the moon. Yeah men died on the ground. But what are the odds that none died in space?

reply to post by LosLobos

The space station and the shuttle each have logged much, much more space time than the Apollo missions, and there has not been a catastrophic loss due to micrometeors in the shuttle or space station program, either.

I suppose I don't get what you are trying to say...Are you saying that the odds were totally against the Apollo missions NOT having a catastrophic micrometeor incident? If so, then how do you explain the shuttle and space station programs also not yet having such a catastrophic incident?

Heck, why are the hundreds of satellites orbiting the earth not having terrible micrometeor problems? Why hasn't the Hubble telescope been disabled by micrometeors?

I acknowledge that there is a danger of micrometeors with the shuttle. space station, and satellites, but obviously that danger is relatively low, given the fact that there have not been many major incidents. If the danger is that low, then the odds of the Apollo Missions suffering a catastrophic loss due to micrometeors must have been low, also.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


I thought the space shuttle and space station orbit in LEO? Or the low part of the thermosphere. Since the thermosphere is the biggest part of our atmosphere wouldn't it be like wearing a bullet proof vest for a shuttle in LEO?

I'm just trying to understand was the risk really worth being first on the moon? And if it was then I can see people not being totally truthful about everything. Couple micro's, radiation, and the sheer inherent risk and it just seems odd we pulled it off the first time without a hitch. Also, solar cycle 20 was peaking in 1966 and petering in 1972. Maxed out around 68-69. Going to the moon lasted between 1969 and 1972. Yet today we worry about solar flares taking out sophisticated satellites but not Apollo Modules?

Someone mentioned how there are people in this world who put the information out there for everyone to see then sit back and laugh at how we can't see it. I say that to say this, that movie Capricorn One indicates people have been speculating about the reality of space travel since 1978.

reply to post by LosLobos

Meteors burn up in the part of the atmosphere that is below the space shuttle and space station.

As I mentioned above, the Hubble telescope is orbiting higher than the shuttle (the Hubble is at 300 miles) and has been there for 20 years. It has not yet suffered a catastrophic failure due to a micrometeor. There are satellites in geosynchronous orbits at an altitude of 23,000 miles. Loss of those satellites due to micrometeors is not a huge issue.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Here's another thing. We apparently almost lost a crew on Apollo 13 but we went on 4 more missions to the moon like nothing ever happened. Apollo 14 launched less than year later. I believe it took us 6 years to launch another shuttle after Challenger.

It just seems so odd we took all this risk to be first. And if we couldn't be first then I can see some dishonesty being used.

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

 

Meteors burn up in the part of the atmosphere that is below the space shuttle and space station.

As I mentioned above, the Hubble telescope is orbiting higher than the shuttle (the Hubble is at 300 miles) and has been there for 20 years. It has not yet suffered a catastrophic failure due to a micrometeor. There are satellites in geosynchronous orbits at an altitude of 23,000 miles. Loss of those satellites due to micrometeors is not a huge issue.

I thought they burn up in the meso but slow down once they enter the thermo. It takes a few seconds to heat up and glow I would imagine. But their speed decreases considerably once they enter the thermo.

Soylent,

I'm not trying to be a pain but some folks think the pictures from Hubble are fake. To be honest, any picture can be created using sophisticated technology. And they reason they say it's fake is because nothing is ever truly real time with NASA. Yeah, we see the shuttles take off and the satellites launched. But the information after those events is always months or years later.

Like the whole moon rock thing. Okay, if some great impactor created the moon wouldn't it make sense we can find moon rocks right here on Earth? Isn't the moon basically a piece of Earth?

Just so many things you may call nonsense but people like me call skepticism.

reply to post by LosLobos


We can't even find 4.5 million year-old Earth rocks on Earth, let alone 4.5 million year-old Moon rocks on Earth. Most likely all the stuff that was on the earth when the Moon was (supposedly) created by an impact event has been recycled.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Problem I have is the we part of your explanation. By we I assume you mean people who make a living off of rocks and space travel. Problem I have is people making a living off rocks aren't going to tell me something that doesn't make money for them. Not saying that's what you do. Quite the contrary. I'm saying why should I believe something a scientist says is fact?

PS....again...I'm not trying to start problems for you or people who believe what you believe. I just want to know why after Apollo 13 they rushed Apollo 14. The investigation was barely complete before they started ramping up for another mission.

You telling me going to the moon only requires a 3 month investigation after almost losing 3 men in space?

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

 

We can't even find 4.5 million year-old Earth rocks on Earth, let alone 4.5 million year-old Moon rocks on Earth. Most likely all the stuff that was on the earth when the Moon was (supposedly) created by an impact event has been recycled.

Some folks think the Earth is not 4.5 million years old. Think about it for a second. Man has evolved mentally over the last 200K years according to most. But 4.5 million years I would expect man to be able to teleport by now. Some think Earth is in the thousands of years old. Here in lies the problem. It's really just a leap of faith to believe the earth is older than a few thousand years. If man creates the rules of the universe then man can also create the lies of the universe. I'm not sure why I should just believe what a scientist says over what a non scientist says. I know scientist have the education and whatnot but that doesn't mean they are right.

I think that is a fair statement.

reply to post by LosLobos


They didn't "rush" it:

....want to know why after Apollo 13 they rushed Apollo 14.

And, unlike the Shuttle Challenger tragedy, they knew right away what happened on A-13. And the solution, to prevent it from re-curring, was relatively much easier to fix than the full re-design of the SRBs on the Space Shuttle!

The no. 2 oxygen tank used in Apollo 13 (North American Rockwell; serial number 10024X-TA0008) had originally been installed in Apollo 10. It was removed from Apollo 10 for modification and during the extraction was dropped 2 inches, slightly jarring an internal fill line. The tank was replaced with another for Apollo 10, and the exterior inspected. The internal fill line was not known to be damaged, and this tank was later installed in Apollo 13.

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

See? It was actually mishandled, and damaged by human error. THEN, the inspections that followed were not thorough enough. You can find similar stories, all throughout Man's mechanical inventions, in aerospace.

Also....this was rather simple to research online. Why didn't you just do it, instead of "asking" here in-thread? This sort of false "incredulity" and innuendo-dropping is usually an indication of some sort of agenda...is this the case, here?

Originally posted by LosLobos
Here's another thing. We apparently almost lost a crew on Apollo 13 but we went on 4 more missions to the moon like nothing ever happened. Apollo 14 launched less than year later.

There was a lengthy investigation into Apollo 13. No one went on like nothing happened. As weedwhacker pointed out, they knew what happened with Apollo 13 and the solution didn't require a redesign of any system or parts.

I believe it took us 6 years to launch another shuttle after Challenger.

It was actually two years and nine months until the next Shuttle launch after Challenger. And about two and a half years for the next Shuttle flight after Columbia broke up.