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.

 

Moon Landing Hoax - The Space Suit

page: 8
65
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   
All missions to the moon were unmanned. If there were any men on any mission to the moon. They died up there.

President Kennedy's goal "landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth" was not achieved.




posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   
They look so bummed, I would be too if i had to lie to the American people and be decorated a false hero


I would be furious, I bet it eats at them every day





posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore
reply to post by AaronWilson
 


We do ?? Show us these mirrors,


Get a laser and a biggish telescope, a really sensitive CCD and you can see for yourself...



...oh and please keep explaining to us how we cannot get an even REMOTELY clear picture of the landing sites and all the rest of the supposed junk


MTF. Rayleigh's limit. It's all you really need to understand there. The resolution of any spaceborne telescope isn't limited by its perfection, it's also bounded by the aperture, orbital height and wavelength of the light used to make the image. You don't get to infinitely zoom in. Not yours.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Tsurugi
 


THANK YOU!!!

This post I am replying to sums it up (and, I imagine, many others in the previous pages did as well)....

Skimming this time, due to slow Internet connection, but the OP's premise is flawed, and indicates a primary misunderstanding of the science involved in the PLSS operation.

What the OP's premise appears to show is a comprehension of "air conditioning" in an atmosphere, as here on Earth...your car, your refrigerator, etc....but NOT a full understanding of thermodynamic principles, especially in a vacuum.

This is a most common problem of comprehension, sadly.

Finishing to say, this thread DEVOLVED into a "Moon Hoax" diatribe, which is a shame, since the PLSS principles used in the Apollo/Skylab A7L EVA suit models are not much different from any OTHER EVA suits used since --- for ISS and Space Shuttle missions...(Read about the history of all American EVA suits)..... (even other versions such as, the Soviet-era, now Russian) versions, and to include the Chinese designs....all in the previous link, and further able to be researched online.

The premise of this OP demonstrates a continued bias towards the "dumbing down" of knowledge....

It is called "science"....not "magic"....nor "hoax"..........



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Ove38
 


And, as if "on schedule".......THIS post I am replying to just re-affirms the idiotic tenacity of those who simply cannot accept reality, even when confronted with it......when facts are not in compliance with a "belief"?

Then, it continues as a sort of "quasi-religious" adherence....and facts are ignored, as a result.

What a friking shame!



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit
If nothing else amuses me, it's the amount of effort people put into the utterly ludicrous and hilarious "we didn't visit the moon" theories. So much misguided research and deluded conclusions.

We were on the moon - get over it.

Hi fle
When were you there? Who was with you?
Where did you deficate and urinate???
How did you breath??
What kept you warm at -200.
What kept you cool at +200.
I want to know more about your experience but this is enough for now.
Thanks alot ljb



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


Are you serious???

I know, this was not directed towards me, but.......SERIOUSLY????

Setting aside the "moon" aspect......

....ARE YOU PREPARED to claim, here and now, that even the Space Shuttles, Skylab, and the ISS are all "FAKED"???

Think long and hard on that, "lgb".....



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


So your premiss is if you haven't been there yourself it doesn't exist. I'd wager to guess you've never been to the summit of Mt. Everest, so that doesn't exist either? Breathing can be done with gas tanks, but with your logic deep sea dives are impossible. Why don't you tell us when -200º and +200º are reached, when such temperatures were ever recorded but I guess you can't because you weren't there. Which leads us to just where did you get that information from and why do you believe it.

That's all for now.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

Where did you deficate and urinate???


On board Apollo, you pee into a rubber cup that fits over your johnson like a reusable condom cath. It goes into a bag. The bag is connected to an overboard dump vent. Open the vent, out goes the pee into space. See also "Constellation Urion"

Poop is a bit more difficult, you have this wire frame with a bag over it, a small downdraft vented outside wafts the turds and farts into the bag. Wipe, into the bag, twist and seal the bag, store it. Of course, you minimize this by eating low residue food before you take off, and the food on board is high protein low residue. Sort of like eating MREs - the idea is to plug you up so you don't have to go.



How did you breath??


Pack O2 with you in liquid form. Get rid of the CO2 with lithium hydroxide. Easy peasy.



What kept you warm at -200.
What kept you cool at +200.


Insulation. Reflective surfaces on the outside. The fact that while one side of the Apollo is hot, the other is cold due to radiation of the heat, so you pipe the cooling circuit around. Also you do passive thermal rolls most of the time so that the temperature evens out. A sublimator system to get rid of the extra heat.



I want to know more about your experience but this is enough for now.
Thanks alot ljb


Reading is fundamental.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


Are you serious???

I know, this was not directed towards me, but.......SERIOUSLY????

Setting aside the "moon" aspect......

....ARE YOU PREPARED to claim, here and now, that even the Space Shuttles, Skylab, and the ISS are all "FAKED"???

Think long and hard on that, "lgb".....

serious as a heart attack
the rest is off topic
long and hard enough



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Guys I think LJB was attempting to be humorous at the "we were on the moon" aspect.

ETA: if he wasn't talking about that....then have at it
edit on 4-6-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 

I'd wager to guess you've never been to the summit of Mt. Everest, so that doesn't exist either?
but with your logic deep sea dives are impossible.

That's all for now.


Hi Ill,
These questions are more than fair. But you will not like the answers, maybe.

Many have reached the summit of the big one 30,000 feet or so.FEET

And you know what Ill???
More are proly still up there dead, than ever even suposedly went to the MOON.
Now how deep is the suited record for a man not within a chamber???
Just a suit, say a space suit type.
Come on Ill don't let me down brother. How deep????
Oh and BTW in 1969 thank you
ljb



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by toocoolnc


NASA insists the space suits the astronauts supposedly wore on the lunar surface were air conditioned. An air conditioner cannot, and will not work without a heat exchanger. A heat exchanger simply takes heat gathered in a medium such as freon from one place and transfers it to another place. This requires a medium of molecules which can absorb and transfer the heat such as an atmosphere or water. An air conditioner will not and cannot work in a vacuum. A space suit surrounded by a vacuum cannot transfer heat from the inside of the suit to any other place. The vacuum, remember, is a perfect insulator. A man would roast in his suit in such a circumstance.

NASA claims the spacesuits were cooled by a water system which was piped around the body, then through a system of coils sheltered from the sun in the backpack. NASA claims that water was sprayed on the coils causing a coating of ice to form. The ice then supposedly absorbed the tremendous heat collected in the water and evaporated into space. There are two problems with this that cannot be explained away. 1) The amount of water needed to be carried by the astronauts in order to make this work for even a very small length of time in the direct 55 degrees over the boiling point of water (210 degrees F at sea level on Earth) heat of the sun could not have possibly been carried by the astronauts. 2) NASA has since claimed that they found ice in moon craters. NASA claims that ice sheltered from the direct rays of the sun will NOT evaporate destroying their own bogus "air conditioning" explanation. - William Cooper


I have been in the HVAC field for neary 25years, a tech most of that time, a facility coordinator now, keeping 50 buildings up and running and all have chillers along with boilers. And I can confirm that I have worked on chillers that run in a vacuum, especially those that used R11 which has centrifugal compressors.

Also depending on the air pressure I am sure water would pretty much have a much lower boiling point on the moon.

And looking at this setup for the PLSS en.wikipedia.org... I see no reason why they could not heat/cool, with a liquid a/c system, and apprently they have an airpack for O2 also.

I am still skeptical about us ever landing on the moon, but there are alot of folks who do not research material before posting/spewing nonsense about something they have no idea about.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


what are you talking about "how deep"? are you talking about underwater? like with huge amounts of crushing pressure....and you are comparing this to the near void of space?
its hard to understand what youre even trying to get at
i would be far more rude but im fairly certain your drunk so ill be forgiving

and if you agree we can get into space then why not the moon? or do you deny we were able to even get out of the atmosphere in the late 60s?

edit on 6-4-2012 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-4-2012 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


What significance does the 1969 crack imply? Tell us exactly what is so different with space life support and propulsion today from 1969. One can web search answers to the questions you ask. Instead let me offer a little comparison.

First liquid fueled rocket (LFR), March 16, 1926.
First LFR to reach space, June 13, 1944.
First LFR to reach orbit, October 4, 1957.
First spacecraft to reach earth escape velocity, January 2, 1959, (Luna 1), lunar flyby (missed the moon).
First US spacecraft to reach earth escape velocity, March 3, 1959. (Pioneer 4), lunar flyby, missed the moon.
First spacecraft to reach the moon, September 12, 1959, (Luna 2), lunar impact, crashed on the moon.
First successful moon landing, February 3, 1966 using the "hard landing" technique, Luna 9, no photos.
Surveyor 1 (June 1966) was the first American spacecraft to achieve soft landing on the Moon.
After launching on December 21, 1968, Apollo 8 took three days to travel to the Moon, it safely retuned its crew back to earth.
July 20, 1969, at 20:17:39 UTC Apollo 11 safely landed men on the moon.

All seems to be a reasonable progression to me, especially if one considers;
First, special relativity was published in 1905, and the final form of general relativity was published in 1916.
Ernest Rutherford, is widely credited with first "splitting the atom" in 1917 in a nuclear reaction between nitrogen and alpha particles, in which he also discovered (and named) the proton. This led to the first experiment to split the nucleus in a fully controlled manner, performed by two students working under his direction, John Cockcroft and Ernest Walton, in 1932.
Trinity Nuclear Test conducted by the United States Army on July 16, 1945 was the first nuclear bomb detonation.


Apparently figuring out controlled particle physics progressed more rapidly and earlier than rocket science.

So what's so hard to believe?



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Tsurugi
 


THANK YOU!!!

This post I am replying to sums it up (and, I imagine, many others in the previous pages did as well)....

Skimming this time, due to slow Internet connection, but the OP's premise is flawed, and indicates a primary misunderstanding of the science involved in the PLSS operation.

What the OP's premise appears to show is a comprehension of "air conditioning" in an atmosphere, as here on Earth...your car, your refrigerator, etc....but NOT a full understanding of thermodynamic principles, especially in a vacuum.

This is a most common problem of comprehension, sadly.

Finishing to say, this thread DEVOLVED into a "Moon Hoax" diatribe, which is a shame, since the PLSS principles used in the Apollo/Skylab A7L EVA suit models are not much different from any OTHER EVA suits used since --- for ISS and Space Shuttle missions...(Read about the history of all American EVA suits)..... (even other versions such as, the Soviet-era, now Russian) versions, and to include the Chinese designs....all in the previous link, and further able to be researched online.

The premise of this OP demonstrates a continued bias towards the "dumbing down" of knowledge....

It is called "science"....not "magic"....nor "hoax"..........


Don't like to be a burger but, if something mundane and unconnected to the actual OP as per the apollo 11 event actually disproves the OP, then it is just as valid in it's own right.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


No it isn't valid. Inside a spacesuit is not a vacuum, how did they breath. Kind of kills the idea before its even finished stated don't you think?



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 07:19 PM
link   

"No man has ever ascended higher than 300 miles, if that high, above the Earth's surface. No man has ever orbited, landed on, or walked upon the moon in any publicly known space program. If man has ever truly been to the moon it has been done in secret and with a far different technology."


Gemini 10 used rocket on Agena docking target to propell it to 763 km above earth


The first burn of the Agena engine they made was 80 seconds long and put them in a 294 by 763 kilometres orbit. This was the highest a person had ever been (until the next mission when Gemini 11 went to over 1,000 kilometres (620 mi)). This burn was quite a ride for the crew. Because the Gemini and Agena docked nose to nose, the forces experienced were "eyeballs out" as opposed to "eyeballs in" for a launch from Earth. The crew took a couple of pictures when they reached apogee but were more interested in what was going on in the spacecraft — checking the systems and watching the radiation dosage meter.


763 km is over 450 m iles above earth

Next flight Gemini 11 used the Agena to reach 1370 km (850 miles)


Gemini 11 used the rocket on its Agena target vehicle to raise its apogee to 850 miles (1,370 km), the highest Earth orbit ever reached by a manned spacecraft. The perigee was 179 miles (288 km), and maximum velocity (at perigee) was 17,967 miles per hour (28,915 km/h).[2] The apogee record stands as of December 2011, even though men have achieved greater distances from Earth by flying to the Moon in the Apollo program. The maximum operational altitude of the Space Shuttle was lower, at 600 miles (970 km).


Apparent have no idea what you are talking about......



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85

Originally posted by CynicalWabbit
Here is NASA's explanation of how the PLSS works but it won't matter since your mind is already made up.


www.hq.nasa.gov...


Just seems like there is too many fragile parts in there that if one thing went wrong the astronaut could die.

Unless there is a lot more atmosphere on the Moon than we are told in which case the Suits are not needed and only depressurization and oxygen tank would be needed.



to op


What temp is space then if it's not cold ? Would it be the perfect neutral temp and the only reason we think of space as cold is because of how close our ISS and Astronauts are still to earth.





Which is why space travel is so expensive. Things get checked, then checked again, etc, etc, it's quite exhaustive.

Of course mistakes still happen, humans are involved afterall. From sending up a very expensive telescops with the wrong lens specs to bad O rings, mistakes happen.


If we didn't land on the moon, how did the reflectors get there?

Thousands of college students have bounced lasers off of them over the years.

How do you explain that?



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirhumperdink
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


what are you talking about "how deep"? are you talking about underwater? like with huge amounts of crushing pressure....and you are comparing this to the near void of space?
its hard to understand what youre even trying to get at
i would be far more rude but im fairly certain your drunk so ill be forgiving

and if you agree we can get into space then why not the moon? or do you deny we were able to even get out of the atmosphere in the late 60s?

edit on 6-4-2012 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-4-2012 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)

Hi sirhump
I appreciate your interest.
I do not appreciate asking me if I am drunk.
Btw have you peed in your pants on earth??? Do you like that kind of (crap pun intended)or would you like to stay on topic like I would?
If you do not understand. Quite obvious. don't quote me with a wet blanket of nonsense that I have yet to mention.
take it slow, focus. I will go get another bottle of good stuff. hee hee
ljb



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join