Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Is it even possible to go to the Moon?

page: 14
24
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 04:47 AM
link   
reply to post by nineix
 


breathing apparatus or something?




posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by bryanfcall
 



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?


There is some excellent information about the bio-medical hazards of spaceflight here:

www.mainsgate.com...

There is no question that there are grave risks involved, but the willingness to take risks is what built the American economy, not theft. Solar flares and Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs) are a concern to the International Space Station. When a dangerous event occurs, there is a safety protocol that the crew follows. They power down potentially vulnerable equipment and retreat to an area as deep within the station as possible. This doesn't generally make the mainstream news, but if you frequent sites like www.spacedaily.com... you can keep track of these events.

Most of your posts were extremely off topic, but I feel compelled to observe that the world is not a zero sum game. When one group of people exchange nice shiny cloth or metal tools for tasty vegetables or fine pottery with another, both sides gain. This is called "trade." When one group seizes anothers' belongings, this is called "plunder." Plunder impoverishes one group materially, and impoverishes the other group spiritually. Your friends are criminals, and you would be a fool to trust them. They are lucky they don't live in China, where financial crimes are punished by death.
edit on 16-1-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by bryanfcall
 


Bryanfcall: please get back on topic. Further, it would be tidier, and less rude if you contained all your statements to one comment, at least until another comment is made in reply, or after your comment. If you have another sentence to add, you can click on EDIT, and then add to your comment until you feel like you've satisfied, or exhausted all you think you need to say.

The topic in this thread is "Is it even possible to go to the Moon?"

The opening post describes the guidelines for topical debate.


It's a good debate.

If I haven't said 'Thank You' to the OP yet, well, Thank you. Wonderful topic and guidelines!


edit on 16-1-2012 by nineix because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   

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



Different light sources will cast their own shadow, 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. Nice try.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   
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)



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   

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)


How did I debunk myself? 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. Like what you would observe on a stage. You can also tell the terrain is fairly flat, no steep declines. The video that I watched was over an hour long and I don't want to post that. I'll see if I can find smaller clips.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   

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?


in examinig if something is possible or not, you say looking at the obstacles is futile ?

I thinks it's exactly to the point, and I'm disappointed this was the only response

perhaps you took this as a hoaxer post, I am a believer. if I was a hoaxer I would have mentioned the radiation



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by UB2120
 


Due to the extremely high albedo of the moon, in a sense, you actually do, in a way, have TWO sources of light.
1. The sun
2. The moon itself (reflecting and refracting sunlight)

You may have noticed how bright the moon is, especially on full-moon nights where it's reflected light will actually cast shadows here on Earth.
That's pretty darned bright. Imagine how bright the light reflection off the moon's surface would be ON the moon.

Suffice to say, lighting conditions on the moon are weird.
You've got the sun, and essentially the ground itself as a light source.

This, coupled with terrain gradation, and other factors makes for all sorts of fun.

Take it from a professional photographer. I work with light. Light is my business.
I knows light.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
in examinig if something is possible or not, you say looking at the obstacles is futile ?


It is futile in case the obstacles are not quantified, because in this case any speculation or info does not contribute in any way to the issue of "possibility". And you don't quantify anything. I would say it's enormously difficult to manufacture a Motorola RAZR phone, because it's so advanced and so damn thin. What does it say about the possibility of producing such a device? That's right, absolutely nothing.

Here's what you said:

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)


A lot of this pertains also to various fields of human endeavor, such as submarines, high-altitude hiking, ballistic missiles and missile defense etc. Are these impossible?

The point I made earlier is this -- w/o being an expert in ALL of these areas, we can't really say anything substantial. As a person with engineering background, I don't see showstoppers although I agree with you there are tons of difficulties -- not obstacles!


perhaps you took this as a hoaxer post, I am a believer. if I was a hoaxer I would have mentioned the radiation


I respect that.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   

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.


Here is one that shows Neil Armstrongs shadow grow slightly where it should stay the same. To me the ground doesn't look like it effects the shadow much. It is not the video I was looking for, which was taken from the same angle and was after they had the flag up.

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Here is the long video. The part I am referring to is at 1:06:26.

www.youtube.com...


jra

posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   

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 wouldn't be cheaper to use the old designs. Construction methods would be different today than they were 40 years ago, we have access to newer and different materials that they didn't have back then, all the specialized tooling that was developed for those rockets and vehicles would be gone. It's much better to go with a brand new design, while using what knowledge was gained from previous designs.


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?


We'll have to disagree about the quality of the video. I think it's great for its time. Especially the stuff from the later missions (Apollo's 15 - 17). And there are hours and hours of video per mission. How much of the Apollo video recordings have you really watched?


The final cost of project Apollo was reported to Congress as $25.4 billion in 1973.


And the part you didn't quote from Wikipedia:


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).


But that same Apollo spacecraft would cost you $46,707,617.77 in 2010 dollars. You should adjust for inflation if you're going to compare something in today's dollars to the cost of something from 1969.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
reply to post by Maslo
 



$170 Billion for an old tech rocket?



It was not an old tech, but cutting edge tech rocket in 1969. Today, the same rocket will probably cost less due to advances in construction and space engineering made since, but still it would be many tens of billions of dollars at least. Spaceflight is expensive.

You can see the cost of a comparable modern program when looking at the estimates for cancelled Constellation program:


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.


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 02:18 AM
link   

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


Sorry Split. You are using the old fallacy of "I know the Russians better than the Russians" gambit.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by CaptainBeno
 


POINT is.....Apollo WAS real

Deal with it please,


POINT of order!

ProudBird, this thread is about fundamental disagreements with the Apollo/Moon debates. The purpose here is not to win or lose POINTS.

When you say "Apollo WAS real" you should be required to stipulate what you mean, exactly, to list the mission numbers that are real, to list your sources. Why?

Because there are people out on the internet, like myself, who have very complex theories about which missions were real, which were not real and the reasons why, etc. When you say "Apollo WAS real" would you care to be more specific with that? Are you a fundamentalist with regard to Apollo scriptures?



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 02:40 AM
link   
Your thread needs more pics DJ


When Russians launched Sputnik it was 1957. The Military Industrial Complex were having heart attacks and strokes because the Reds had a satellite high above Washington D.C.

I examined the covers of Life Magazine from about 1950~1970. I noticed that Kennedy's, JFK, RFK and Jackie O gained many covers. I also noticed that Nixon gained many covers during his time as VP under Ike.. also he gained many covers while he was President.

I noticed that LBJ didn't get a lot of covers in Life Magazine. Here is a cover from 1957 and it really sets the tone for the late 1950's doesn't it?




posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 05:22 AM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by UB2120
 


I hate to divert from the OP's intent, here.....this thread is NOT about Apollo, per se......however, let's view it as an exercise in intellectual thought......because no matter when the next manned missions to the Moon take place, there is a distinct possibility (based on these poorly thought-out "conspiracy" claims of the past), that future examples of video, photographic evidence will be subjected to the same idiotic scrutiny, by people like David Percy (in the second longer video posted) who is either intentionally lying, or doesn't do proper research, or simply believed what he was told by someone else.

BTW, have seen that prat from the "Dark Mission" film in many clips on YouTube, countless times...He is possibly an utter fool, as mentioned above........ or a shill for the "hoax" community.


Firstly, the short video (that is from the 16mm film DAC (Data Acquisition Camera) mounted in the LM's right-hand _ The shadow is perfectly normal.

Secondly, "Dark Mission". AT the time reference you suggested, we have David Percy blathering on, and completely making a fool of himself, by comparing the shadows of the Astronauts from Apollos 11 and 12, and incorrectly stating the angles of the Sun above the horizon on each mission.

He says that Apollo 11 had a "just over ten degrees above the horizon" angle , and that Apollo 12 shadows of the Astronauts are longer. He goes on to say, ".....but if the Sun was at a higher angle of 15, 16 degrees during their EVA....."


Well, let's fact check:


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.


  • Source (I added emphasis).


    Now, we could check the provenance of the Apollo 12 clip he used, and I'd wager the film was made during EVA-1.

    So much for David Percy's "credibility"....or any of the makers of that travesty piece of crap film.


    Oh, and Percy goes on to use an Apollo 14 example, saying "....watch his shadow do some really strange things."

    NO, the Astronaut's shadow moving foreground to background merely shortens to match his colleague's on his right, who is stationary, opening the MESA it looks like. That shadow differential is obviously due to slope of the terrain.



    If anyone wishes to do more research, and see for themselves to verify the veracity of the Sun angles, there is a neat little program (Free) called Stellarium. I have checked this out already......with the program you can (first) look up the Latitude/Longitude coordinates for each Apollo landing site, then (second) the dates and times for those landings.

    AT that point, you can place "yourself"on the Moon, for a Point of View as if you were there, that place, date and time. You can see where the Earth would have appeared in the Lunar "sky", and of course there is a grid you can select on or off, to show the height of the Sun, in degrees, above the horizon.

    You can go visit just about anywhere in the Solar System, too.......



    posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 02:49 PM
    link   

    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.


    Your question "Is it even possible to go to the Moon?" is still vague and speculative. Do you mean only to orbit? Do you mean to orbit for 3 days? Do you mean to orbit and land a craft? Do you mean to orbit, land a craft and have that craft take off again? Do you mean to orbit with men, land a craft with men and take off from the moon with men in the craft and return them safely to earth? Are you talking about 1960's technology or 2012 technology?

    My posts are completely relevant. The answer to your speculative question will always be "no" until some agency can demonstrate the ability. The Russians demonstrated Sputnik in 1957 followed by dozens of countries who have the capability to put satellites into space.
    The Americans demonstrated Apollo in 1969 followed by ..................................... nobody.

    If, according to your bizarre thread stipulations, we are not allowed to reference Apollo (or to treat Apollo as if it never existed) then my reasoning is even more clear and logical. To go to the Moon one must demonstrate the ability. The ability comes from political willpower and command of resources.

    "Is it even possible to go to the Moon?" Yes, for satellites and remote controlled automatic landers using 1969 technology.
    "Is it even possible to go to the Moon?" No, for manned missions, using 2012 technology.



    posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 03:35 PM
    link   
    reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
     


    Incorrect:


    "Is it even possible to go to the Moon?" No, for manned missions, using 2012 technology.



    The proof, contrary to the rant above, about "other agencies" reaching the Moon, was admitted in the rant itself, by the acknowledgement of other "agencies" that have lofted satellites to, and successfully orbited, the Moon.


    Furthermore, there is no question as to feasibility of manned spaceflight.....now, in 2012, and back in the 1960s too. Therefore, since manned missions to the Moon did occur in the 1960s and 1970s, it is certainly just as possible today, and will be into the future.

    The issue is that no "agency" as yet has wished to mount the expense.....[***].....certainly merely going out for a "visit", a few orbits, and returning is a lot more inexpensive than a full-on landing mission.....but, to what useful purpose is that? (Other than some private corporation that wished to offer it for "tourism").

    Because it's a damn sight more expensive than robotics and ground-controlled spacecraft.

    For a governmental exploratory and scientific endeavor, sending people for a Lunar "round trip" is unnecessarily wasteful, when robots can accomplish just as much, maybe more, science.


    [***] Excepting, the Chinese Government, who seem to be intent on a Lunar landing sometime soon. (AND, much, much more...).

    Even the USA had politically decided to resurrect / re-boot a manned Lunar mission program, but then administrations came and went, as usual.....and again, for U.S. politics, it is funding and maneuvering and "cronyism".


    Space Plan From China Broadens Challenge to U.S.


    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.


    edit on Tue 17 January 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)





    new topics

    top topics



     
    24
    << 11  12  13    15 >>

    log in

    join