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.
They sent at least Six manned missions to the Moon in a period of Eighteen months way back then.
On September 5, 1951, the USAF awarded Consolidated-Vultee a contract to fly a nuclear reactor onboard a modified Convair B-36[7] under the MX-1589 project of the ANP program. The NB-36H Nuclear Test Aircraft (NTA) was to study shielding requirements for an airborne reactor, to determine whether a nuclear aircraft was feasible. This was the only known airborne reactor experiment by the U.S. with an operational nuclear reactor on board. The NTA flew a total of 47 times testing the reactor over West Texas and Southern New Mexico. The reactor, named the Aircraft Shield Test Reactor (ASTR), was operational but did not power the plane, rather the primary purpose of the flight program was shield testing.
Based on the results of the NTA, the X-6 and the entire nuclear aircraft program was abandoned in 1961.
Originally posted by wmd_2008
Originally posted by artistpoet
but I have a feeling it has been censored by NASA - So here goes - Thanks againedit on 11-1-2012 by artistpoet because: (no reason given)
Ah the classic get out clause for a hoax believer
Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by lambros56
And, this is an example of why nonsense such as Apollo "hoax" remains......instead of stating facts, too often people either make things up off the top of their heads, or repeat (wrongly) something they've read elsewhere that someone else made up off the top of their head:
They sent at least Six manned missions to the Moon in a period of Eighteen months way back then.
.
Do your research instead of thinking of making an accusation....
Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by lambros56
Do your research instead of thinking of making an accusation....
I do the research.
You wrote "...at least Six manned missions to the Moon in a period of Eighteen months"......
This is incorrect, as the research clearly shows.
edit on Thu 12 January 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by H1ght3chHippie
reply to post by Phage
You can not scientifically prove that the signal was transmitted in real time.
Originally posted by H1ght3chHippie
This could or could not have been an elaborate technical hoax, using pre-recorded material produced in a studio.
Originally posted by Saint Exupery
This is a testable question. If this was an authentic transmission, and the TV transmission was going out live, and the hi-res photographs match the TV images, then the weather patterns visible in the photographs must match the local weather measured across the country at the time the images were taken.
Originally posted by H1ght3chHippie
Since neither you, or anyone for that matter, can prove or disprove that the images transmitted were "live images", putting this forward as evidence to undermine your theory is flawed logic. Or can you prove that the images were indeed live images ? No you can not.
it's ironic that you tell others to do research before making accusations, when you haven't done the research yourself. There were two lunar orbit missions (Apollo 8 and 10) and two lunar landings (Apollo 11 and 12) before Apollo 13. That's only 5 missions.
Originally posted by lambros56
So it wasn`t three lunar orbits, two landings and Apollo thirteens failed mission?
....but i wanna know why?
Originally posted by liejunkie01
reply to post by Propulsion
Well,
Did you do the research to see how flying dust reacts with no atmosphere?
It is different on the moon you know.......
I believe this argument has been addressed many times here............
look it up.
Originally posted by NuminousCosmos
reply to post by Propulsion
Question for you first...if you're going to fake a moon landing, why not just throw some moon dirt into those pads? I doubt that the set dresser would've missed that little detail, film taken, and photos faked-and no one noticed?
It's silly.
Originally posted by Gibborium
Originally posted by mockrock
reply to post by NuminousCosmos
Ha ha ha ! Ridiculous.. Gravity is 1/6 of Earth's there is no atmosphere, hence with no air resistance combined with this reduced gravity.. there should be not mere specks of dust but masses of it.. since NASA stated that this dust is clingy.. it should everywhere!
Physics is a fun and interesting field of study. It is a natural science that involves the study of matter and its motion through spacetime, along with related concepts such as energy and force. More broadly, it is the general analysis of nature, conducted in order to understand how the universe behaves. Wiki Link
Your statment [mockrock's], is in error. Since there is no atmosphere on the moon, there can not be atmospheric turbulence. Any particle/object that is moved/propelled in a non atmospheric environment encounters no [atmospheric] resistance. Therefore it will travel continuously in a straight path until it encounters some form of resistance.
Gravity can be a form of resistance when applied to an object that comes within it's influence. Gravity creates a force on any object within it's influence. Earth's standard gravity is, by definition, 9.80665 m/s2, Link which is about 32.1740 ft/s2. The moon's standard gravity is, 0.1655 m/s2, which is about 1.625 ft/s2. This means the earth's gravity is stronger than the moon's, but gravity is gravity and it's action creates the same reaction. This force (gravity) draws this object to it's center, which in our perspective on earth is down. So, something that is dropped, or propelled will drop slower on the moon than on the earth. But, it will still drop.
The gases in the exhaust of the lander's engine will not encounter any other atmosphere to react with. But it is reactant to the moon's gravity. The exhaust's deflection when it comes into contact with the moon's surface is different than it would be on earth, because of the lack of an atmosphere. Here is an example of how that exhaust would appear from an example on earth -
The exhaust hits the surface and is deflected at an almost 90 degree angle. This causes the dust particles to be moved by that force/atmosphere in the same direction. It will not billow up [aerosol] and form a cloud because there is NO atmosphere to react with.
Here is the actual video of the decent and landing of the Eagle lunar module. Eagle After it loads, you can move the slider almost to the right and skip most of the decent. Here you will see the dust being moved by the exhaust of the lander in a radial pattern out away from the engine exhaust located under the lander.
Conclusion: No billows of dust. No clouds formed. Dust being propelled by exhaust of lander in a straight out perpendicular direction. I hope this helps you to understand the physics at play on the moon are different than on the earth.
Gib
edit on 11/12/2011 by Gibborium because: picture