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.
I don't at all want to disagree with you, but I have to say, I have no personal experience with the Van Allen belts or how to safely pass through them. That makes it much more difficult for me to so confidently say that it's as simple as having gas money to take a trip to the moon. While i trust that the science behind what you say is genuine and correct, there must be a number of unaccounted for variables that change the severity of the effects of radiation when passing through the Van Allen belts. Of course solar flares come to mind. Most scientists of any discipline related to the subject readily admit they can not predict how or when solar flares strike. Making it impossible to gauge what amount of protection would be necessary on any given trip.So how can you be so sure that the shuttles we use would be adequate in protecting the Astronauts inside them? And I think it is also important to keep in mind the amount of trips that have been taken, and with several chances for solar flares to play a part each trip, wouldn't it make sense that a few American Astronauts have been caught in the Van Allen belt at the wrong time? And, assuming that is correct, why haven't we ever been made aware of such a situation?
Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by UB2120
Shadows on the Moon are complicated because there are several light sources: the Sun, the Earth, and the Moon itself, as well as the astronauts and the Lunar Module. Light from these sources is scattered by lunar dust in many different directions, including into shadows. Additionally, the Moon's surface is not flat and shadows falling into craters and hills appear longer, shorter and distorted from the simple expectations of the hoax believers. More significantly, perspective effects come into play, particularly on rough or angled ground. This leads to non-parallel shadows even on objects which are extremely close to each other, and can be observed easily on Earth wherever fences or trees are found. And finally, the camera in use was fitted with a wide angle lens, which naturally resulted in subtle versions of "fish eye" distortion.
link
....just like you see in a stadium. You will see multiple shadows per object.
That is not observed on the shadows of the Astronauts.
Yes I agree if the shadow falls into a crater or hill it will distort, but that is pretty easy to see.
That was not what was observed.
Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by UB2120
Well, you clearly debunk yourself, then....in regards to (sorry again, DJW) Apollo photos:
....just like you see in a stadium. You will see multiple shadows per object.
THAT is true, with multiple light sources....intense light sources. On the Moon there is only one that is intense enough to cause distinct shadows to form, and that is the Sun.
That is not observed on the shadows of the Astronauts.
Yes, indeed.....the "stadium light effect" shadows, as we can call them, do not occur in the shadows of the Astronauts.....because there was only that ONE primary, and very very bright light source.......one we all know and love.
Yes I agree if the shadow falls into a crater or hill it will distort, but that is pretty easy to see.
Yes......yes, it is.
That was not what was observed.
Where?edit on Mon 16 January 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Originally posted by syrinx high priest
here are the main obstacles as I see them, please feel free to add to it
build a rocket that can overcome earths gravity with a payload attached
navigate to a moving target
descend/land on moving target
build a craft that can survive the cold temps of space and heat of reentry
build space suits that can protect humans on the surface of the moon
provide oxygen and life support for about a week (i think)
This has nothing to do with the admittedly futile topic of this thread. Sure, there are many obstacles in making a Lunar mission reality, but as I posted, there are also 1,000,000 obstacles in building a functional nuclear reactor what can produce energy for decades and is not too likely to blow up or vice versa actually stall indefinitely. Just trust me on this, this is tough tough tough business.
So?
I said multiple shadows were not seen.
So why would a shadow grow or shrink?
It would not if the Sun were the light source, but it would if the Sun was not. I'm saying in some of the videos I've seen you can see their shadow change drastically while only walking a few feet.
You can also tell the terrain is fairly flat, no steep declines.
Originally posted by syrinx high priest
in examinig if something is possible or not, you say looking at the obstacles is futile ?
build a rocket that can overcome earths gravity with a payload attached
navigate to a moving target
descend/land on moving target
build a craft that can survive the cold temps of space and heat of reentry
build space suits that can protect humans on the surface of the moon
provide oxygen and life support for about a week (i think)
perhaps you took this as a hoaxer post, I am a believer. if I was a hoaxer I would have mentioned the radiation
Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by UB2120
I said multiple shadows were not seen.
And you are 100% correct.
So why would a shadow grow or shrink?
Terrain slope.
It would not if the Sun were the light source, but it would if the Sun was not. I'm saying in some of the videos I've seen you can see their shadow change drastically while only walking a few feet.
As above......the terrain.
You can also tell the terrain is fairly flat, no steep declines.
Incorrect.
Post the hour-long video, we can fast-forward through the boring bits.
Originally posted by CaptainBeno
What has been bugging me though is, why then havent they just used the old design rockets and pods etc and given them a revamp......surely if old technology worked first time it would suitable nowadays? And what's more really cheap!? Tried and tested method.....so to speak?
It's just sad that "if" they went, there is no other visual proof other than a couple of sh2t films and photo's.
How much was the whole deal?
The final cost of project Apollo was reported to Congress as $25.4 billion in 1973.
In 2009, NASA held a symposium on project costs which presented an estimate of the Apollo program costs in 2005 dollars as roughly $170 billion. This included all research and development costs; the procurement of 15 Saturn V rockets, 16 Command/Service Modules, 12 Lunar Modules, plus program support and management costs; construction expenses for facilities and their upgrading, and costs for flight operations. This was based on a Congressional Budget Office report, A Budgetary Analysis of NASA’s New Vision for Space, September 2004.
Interesting to note Apollo spacecraft $7,945.0 Million. In 2011, it was estimated that a single Tomahawk cruise missile costs $830,000 (£500,000).
Originally posted by CaptainBeno
reply to post by Maslo
$170 Billion for an old tech rocket?
When President Bush established his new space exploration policy to return humans to the moon, NASA estimated the policy would cost $230 billion (in 2004 dollars) through 2025.[29] This figure includes the Commercial Crew and Cargo program, which is separate from the Constellation program. NASA has estimated that the Constellation program would cost over $97 billion (in 2008 dollars) through 2020, half of which would be for Ares I and Orion.
Originally posted by SplitInfinityThe Russians were paying close attention to the missions and followed the progress of each mission and never once debated the reality of the landings. Thay alone should tell you something.
Traveling to the Moon is not that difficult...landing back then needed skill but using todays tech...it would be simple. Split Infinity
Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by CaptainBeno
POINT is.....Apollo WAS real
Deal with it please,
Apollo 11
Landing: 102.75 GET
EVA
Start: 109.00 GET, 14.0 deg.
Finis: 111.75 GET, 15.4 deg.
Apollo 12
Landing: 110.50 GET
EVA-1
Start: 115.25 GET, 7.5 deg.
Finis: 119.25 GET, 9.5 deg.
EVA-2
Start: 131.50 GET, 15.8 deg.
Finis: 135.50 GET, 17.8 deg.
Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
None of your posts have been relevant. This thread is not about the historicity of the Apollo program. If you think it is impossible to travel to the Moon, explain why. If you want to wallow in the propaganda wars of the 1950s and 60s, start your own thread.
"Is it even possible to go to the Moon?" No, for manned missions, using 2012 technology.
Published: December 29, 2011
BEIJING — Broadening its challenge to the United States, the Chinese government on Thursday announced an ambitious five-year plan for space exploration that would move China closer to becoming a major rival at a time when the American program is in retreat.
Coupled with China’s earlier vows to build a space station and put an astronaut on the moon, the plan conjured up memories of the cold-war-era space race between the United States and the Soviet Union. The United States, which has de-emphasized manned spaceflight in recent years, is now dependent on Russia for transporting its astronauts to the International Space Station. Russia, for its part, has suffered an embarrassing string of failed satellite launchings.
The plan announced Thursday calls for launching a space lab and collecting samples from the moon, all by 2016, along with a more powerful manned spaceship and space freighters.