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 lander prototype blows up in NASA test

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 01:15 AM
link   
Video of the test

Hmmm, suspicious. They just landed a much more sophisticated piece of kit on Mars, and this one flips over and explodes in two seconds.

Good excuse to delay going back to the moon.

Cheers,
Chaz.




posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Chaz
 
That sucks. They have another when that can be built within 3 months or so according to the article, so better luck next time. You would think they would have this down by now.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 02:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Chaz
 


OMG NASA... how embarrassing...i could do better in my backyard, for half the price...

they have been experimenting with these sort of things for decades,
and they still cant even get the latest model 6 feet off the ground...

and people still believe we landed on the moon 40 years ago???


seeeya



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 02:33 AM
link   


Olansen said the space agency has spent about $7 million on the project over two and a half years, and the test lander lost Thursday was "in the $500,000 class."


They sound like talking about petty cash. HELLO NASA......economy colapsing (like they will listen).



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 02:52 AM
link   
Too bad that NASA won't use Area 51 technology. I don't recall any Black Triangle ships crashing and exploding recently.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 03:10 AM
link   
landing on the moon is apparently 40+ year old technology, it should be perfected by now.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 03:12 AM
link   
reply to post by shaneR

 


I know a plant that's making electronics for like 40 years now. They pay me, among others, to repair pcb's that come fresh out of the oven.

You wouldn't believe the failures I get to see that pass right out of the hawk-eye and aoi unit not to mention the x-ray machine. Theoretically all products should work 100%. They do not.. far from... lucky me.

And people still believe we developed computers xty years ago???

Things fail.

seeeya



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 03:25 AM
link   
lol

im not suprised, considering they didnt even have one successful test on earth with the original apollo lander.

this is their first time trying to go to the moon. dont kid yourself



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 03:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Chaz
 


Good excuse to delay going back to the moon.
A new manned mission to the Moon was delayed long before this happened.

President Barack Obama has killed NASA’s $100 billion plans to return astronauts to the moon.
www.washingtontimes.com...

Morpheus is not a Moon lander. It is a testbed for developing new propulsion and autonomous control systems.

Morpheus is a vertical test bed vehicle demonstrating new green propellant propulsion systems and autonomous landing and hazard detection technology.
morpheuslander.jsc.nasa.gov...

edit on 8/10/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by D.Wolf
reply to post by shaneR

 


I know a plant that's making electronics for like 40 years now. They pay me, among others, to repair pcb's that come fresh out of the oven.

You wouldn't believe the failures I get to see that pass right out of the hawk-eye and aoi unit not to mention the x-ray machine. Theoretically all products should work 100%. They do not.. far from... lucky me.

And people still believe we developed computers xty years ago???

Things fail.

seeeya

It's called testing, precisely because electronics do not work 100%. You make something, you test it, you throw away or rework the failures and then you sell the things that work. You also do life tests (in ovens) which accelerate the "life" of the product to determine whether there is any inherent ageing problem. If there is then the process that made the product will need modifying.

This wacky notion of testing electronics before shipping them has been going on for decades !! I worked in semiconductors for 30 years. The products became more sophisticated but the number of tests and positions within the manufacturing process where the tests were made were practically identical!



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 03:40 AM
link   
So, they had technology to land on the moon without any issues half a century ago, but in 2012 it blows up in a couple seconds? That makes sense.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 03:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Bodhi7
 


That makes sense.

Yes it does. Since was a testbed for entirely new technology completely unrelated to Apollo, or any other program.


edit on 8/10/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 05:45 AM
link   
I was more impressed with Richard and Mayumi Heenes manmade helium balloon.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bodhi7
So, they had technology to land on the moon without any issues half a century ago, but in 2012 it blows up in a couple seconds? That makes sense.


This is in no way comparable to the Moon landings. Stop trying to force links where there are none, you end up looking foolish. NASA landed on the Moon. Accept it, as much as it may pain you to do so.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 06:10 AM
link   
Let me ask this to all the skeptics who said we didn't land on the moon:
If NASA didn't land on the moon in the 60's, and it was all a lie, why would they show this? Why not continue the lie and say the lander worked?
It's called TRIAL AND ERROR, they're trying new things, like they did back in the 60's
Waiting for your excuses and theories
Personally, I know they landed on the moon, and are trying to do it again, and I hope they find a good system to do it with.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaneR
reply to post by Chaz
 


OMG NASA... how embarrassing...i could do better in my backyard, for half the price...

they have been experimenting with these sort of things for decades,
and they still cant even get the latest model 6 feet off the ground...

and people still believe we landed on the moon 40 years ago???


seeeya


Very EASY to claim but obviously BS on your part



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by VikingWarlord
 



That sucks. They have another when that can be built within 3 months or so according to the article, so better luck next time. You would think they would have this down by now


"one" not "when". Note to self, do not post while extremely tired.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by RobinB022
 
The world got to see every second of it's glorious flight too.
I had totally forgotten about that incident, that dude was an ass to make everyone think there was a child in there. Some people, I swear.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by NoExpert
 


Uh, where did i claim that we didn't land on the moon? Way to jump to conclusions.



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by yorkshirelad
 


reply to post by yorkshirelad

 


You know that, I know that, but some seem to think there is no room for failure in testing. No need for testing if nothing blows up once in a while. And I'm talking about routinely made products. The op speaks of a prototype.

Those are made to blow.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join