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.

 

Did nasa really send astronauts to the moon?

page: 15
12
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Panic2k11
 



The speed it took to materialize to me is problematic, not that the first satellite took almost a year for the US after the Soviets, but the technology that I find arguable (and others have argued the points better than I) was on the manned missions to the moon. From the problems regarding navigation, to engines and shielding it does not make any sense to even risk the political results of a failure, especially in the context it was done, I would be much more amenable to accept a calculated risk of failure but not a suicide mission (especially taking in consideration the information we had at the time regarding the Sun's.activity). Some people center the effort taken as mostly politically motivated in the face of the risks to me it made no sense, then we have not one but several reproductions of the feat, the probabilities game then becomes absurd in face of the benefits.


Failure has its political uses as well.




posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Panic2k11
 


Infantile and asinine? Great ad homs but they aren't enough to counter the historical accuracy of my post. The space race - including putting a man on the moon was most certainly a politically motivated endeavor and very much a part of the cold war. The Russians gave us several black eyes previously and putting a man on the moon was the next step in the escalation. We risked it, achieved it, and won the game. To the victor goes the spoils.

Maybe proving your position with sources would be a tad more effective than name calling. No?

~Heff



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by denver22
 


The speed it took to materialize to me is problematic From the problems regarding navigation, to engines and shielding it does not make any sense to even risk the political results of a failure, especially in the context it was done, I would be much more amenable to accept a calculated risk of failure but not a suicide mission (especially taking in consideration the information we had at the time regarding the Sun's.activity)..


I will explain from a post i posted in another thread if this helps you.
Although a risk it was however no suicide mission don't panic!, check the post out.





Intense radiation from solar flares would have killed the Apollo astronauts in route to the Moon and back.


Solar flares were a NASA concern as well, but the radiation doses claimed by the hoax advocates are again greatly exaggerated and unsubstantiated. Although low-intensity solar flares are common, they posed no real threat to the astronauts. High-intensity solar flares could have endangered the astronauts' health, but these large eruptions are infrequent. Furthermore, there are statistical methods for determining the likelihood of a major flare during a given time interval. If NASA found an unacceptably high probability for a solar flare event during a scheduled flight, the mission would have been postponed. No large solar flares occurred during the Apollo missions and typical radiation doses received by the astronauts was very low.




In addition to exposure to deadly radiation, the Apollo astronauts would have been pierced by thousands of micrometeoroids.

Shielding was provided to protect the Apollo astronauts from micrometeoroid bombardment. Due to their low mass, only a thin layer of material was necessary to stop these dust-sized particles. For example, the Lunar Module was protected by a thin aluminum outer shield a few thousandths of an inch thick. In addition, the astronauts' spacesuits included a micrometeoroid garment to protect them while performing activities on the lunar surface.
edit on 31-8-2012 by denver22 because: don't panic



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by denver22
 


The speed it took to materialize to me is problematic, not that the first satellite took almost a year for the US after the Soviets, but the technology that I find arguable (and others have argued the points better than I) was on the manned missions to the moon. From the problems regarding navigation, to engines and shielding it does not make any sense .


Here is a gem to read regarding testing sir.





How could the untested Lunar Module land flawlessly six times on the Moon when its prototype crashed on Earth during training.


The "prototype" to which the hoax advocates refer was not a prototype at all, but two classes of training vehicles known as the Lunar Landing Research Vehicles (LLRV) and the more advanced Lunar Landing Training Vehicles (LLTV). These vehicles included a jet engine to support five-sixths of their airborne weight, a pair of rocket engines that simulated the LM's descent engine, and small jets that mimicked the LM's attitude control thrusters. The Apollo astronauts trained in the LLRV and LLTV to learn the skills necessary to maneuver the actual LM. During one test flight, Neil Armstrong was forced to eject when the LLRV's helium pressurization system for the steering jets failed, causing the LLRV to become unstable and crash. Despite this incident, the LLRV and LLTV flew hundreds of successful flights.

The LLRV and LLTV were very different from the LM and the "untested" LM was far from untested. Every component of the LM was tested over and over again during its development. Furthermore, the LM was tested in space unmanned during the Apollo 5 mission and manned during the Apollo 9 mission. Apollo 10 tested the LM in lunar orbit and performed everything but the landing itself. The next test flight, Apollo 11, performed the first lunar landing. Testing continued during Apollo 12 as the ability of the LM to make a pinpoint landing was demonstrated. The LM flew successfully to the moon because of the hard work of thousands of workers over many years during the design, development and construction of the spacecraft.

Do you see or know about the fact that they didn't just send them on there way sir on a how do
you say...suicide mission.
edit on 31-8-2012 by denver22 because: suicide mission added sir etc



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by krs678
 




how nasa managed to send astronauts through the Van Allen radiation belt without them becoming fatally radiated

NASA sent them AROUND the Van Allen belt. That zone is a doughnut-shaped region held by the earth's magnetic field. The lunar trajectory was planned to miss most of it. Also, the capsule sheilded the astronauts from most of the radiation. Besides, the Van Allen belt is charged particles, not X-ray emitters.

see: NASA DOC re Van Allen Belts

Look for landingapollo.com, where tons of NASA documentation is linked. They even have electrical schematics of the spacecraft wiring, and complete trajectory descriptions.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Turkenstein
 




giant flag


Its an itsy-bitsy flag.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by GrinchNoMore
 




and not one picture ever released to the public


See: landingapollo.com, where there are thousands of pictures.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by denver22
 


The speed it took to materialize to me is problematic, not that the first satellite took almost a year for the US after the Soviets, but the technology that I find arguable


Check out the space suits sir i post this to you , so you can better understand the technology
Of what some overlook and take for granted as a simple white suit etc.

Just read on please



By creating an Earth-like environment within the suit itself, space suits allow humans to walk around in space in relative safety. Space suits provide:



Pressurized Atmosphere

The space suit provides air pressure to keep the fluids in your body in a liquid state -- in other words, to prevent your bodily fluids from boiling. Like a tire, a space suit is essentially an inflated balloon that is restricted by some rubberized fabric, in this case, Neoprene-coated fibers. The restriction placed on the "balloon" portion of the suit supplies air pressure on the astronaut inside, like blowing up a balloon inside a cardboard tube.

Most space suits operate at pressures below normal atmospheric pressure (14.7 lb/in2, or 1 atm); the space shuttle cabin also operates at normal atmospheric pressure. The space suit used by shuttle astronauts operates at 4.3 lb/in2, or 0.29 atm. Therefore, the cabin pressure of either the shuttle itself or an airlock must be reduced before an astronaut gets suited up for a spacewalk. A spacewalking astronaut runs the risk of getting the bends because of the changes in pressure between the space suit and the shuttle cabin.




Oxygen

Space suits cannot use normal air -- 78 percent nitrogen, 21 percent oxygen and 1 percent other gases -- because the low pressure would cause dangerously low oxygen concentrations in the lungs and blood, much like climbing Mt. Everest does. So, most space suits provide a pure oxygen atmosphere for breathing. Space suits get the oxygen either from a spacecraft via an umbilical cord or from a backpack life support system that the astronaut wears.

Both the shuttle and the International Space Station have normal air mixtures that mimic our atmosphere. Therefore, to go into a pure oxygen space suit, a spacewalking astronaut must "pre-breathe" pure oxygen for some period of time before suiting up. This pre-breathing of pure oxygen eliminates the nitrogen from the astronaut's blood and tissues, thereby minimizing the risk of the bends.



Carbon Dioxide explanation just for you...

The astronaut breathes out carbon dioxide. In the confined space of the suit, carbon dioxide concentrations would build up to deadly levels. Therefore, excess carbon dioxide must be removed from the space suit's atmosphere. Space suits use lithium hydroxide canisters to remove carbon dioxide. These canisters are located either in the space suit's life support backpack or in the spacecraft, in which case they are accessed through an umbilical cord.




Temperature

To cope with the extremes of temperature, most space suits are heavily insulated with layers of fabric (Neoprene, Gore-Tex, Dacron) and covered with reflective outer layers (Mylar or white fabric) to reflect sunlight. The astronaut produces heat from his/her body, especially when doing strenuous activities. If this heat is not removed, the sweat produced by the astronaut will fog up the helmet and cause the astronaut to become severely dehydrated; astronaut Eugene Cernan lost several pounds during his spacewalk on Gemini 9. To remove this excess heat, space suits have used either fans/heat exchangers to blow cool air, as in the Mercury and Gemini programs, or water-cooled garments, which have been used from the Apollo program to the present.



Micrometeroids

To protect the astronauts from collisions with micrometeroids, space suits have multiple layers of durable fabrics such as Dacron or Kevlar. These layers also prevent the suit from tearing on exposed surfaces of the spacecraft or a planet or moon.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by VoidHawk
 




Niether their suits or their craft provided protection against radiation.

Ah, but they did! They design criteria did, in fact, take that into account based upon the intensity and time duration of the exposure. The Van Allen Belts aren't that strong, and they aren't X-rays. The trajectory took the capsule AROUND the Van Allen belts, which takes the shape of a doughnut. You must also undertand that exposure time determines the damage done by radiation. The trajectory was designed to limit the astronaut's exposure to about ten minutes at the EDGE if the region, where the intensity was less.

They really did land men on the moon.

See: landingapollo.com

If you think not, please research all of the material linked from that site, and then identify the flaw in the plan or equipment that would have prevented a successful mission.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Has the Apollo 11 missing telemetry data been found yet?

You'd think that would be something Nasa would want to save in a vault somewhere. I mean that data would be the one thing that could prove they went beyond a reasonable doubt. But ..., it's missing



Also in that High Rez picture of the Flags shadow, whats that odd video game beetle looking graphic just behind and above the astronauts calf. That's wierd. Just wondering, I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation. I'm not being sarcastic either, just found it wierd.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by LifeIsPeculiar

Ah, but they did! They design criteria did, in fact, take that into account based upon the intensity and time duration of the exposure. The Van Allen Belts aren't that strong, and they aren't X-rays. The trajectory took the capsule AROUND the Van Allen belts, which takes the shape of a doughnut. You must also undertand that exposure time determines the damage done by radiation. The trajectory was designed to limit the astronaut's exposure to about ten minutes at the EDGE if the region, where the intensity was less.


Correct, they must of suffered under 10 for sure. I think The total radiation dose received by the astronauts was about one rem. A person will experience radiation sickness with a dose of 100-200 rem, and death with a dose of 300+ rem.

But the people in NASA, knew what to do..



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Read the book DARK MOON it brings up many questions and give many answers.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Nola213
 



Has the Apollo 11 missing telemetry data been found yet?


Not exactly:

www.hq.nasa.gov...


You'd think that would be something Nasa would want to save in a vault somewhere. I mean that data would be the one thing that could prove they went beyond a reasonable doubt. But ..., it's missing


First, why would NASA feel the need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they landed on the Moon? They have landed men on the Moon beyond a reasonable doubt. If they did produce the tapes, some people would claim they "must" have been faked. That is not reasonable doubt.



Also in that High Rez picture of the Flags shadow, whats that odd video game beetle looking graphic just behind and above the astronauts calf. That's wierd. Just wondering, I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation. I'm not being sarcastic either, just found it wierd.


I have no idea what you're talking about. Please post or link to the picture.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Turkenstein
reply to post by miniatus
 


Why can we not see the giant flag, they planted, through our telescopes?



You would need 4 Hubble scopes, one for each eye. The brown eye Hubble would be sure to give excellent views of Uranus, although picking out a small American flag on the moon is not really what its designed for.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Spotting the flag would be almost impossible now. It has bleached and its pure white flag now, due Sun's radiation.

One reason why we don't send more people to Moon, is Sun. NASA doesn't want to risk that during the mission, CME would occur. We are safe here on Earth, but nothing in shielding you when you are space. You get so much radiation that you die. Van Allen's belt is nothing compared to radiation from CME. Even people in ISS are in danger from CME, even though Earth's magnetic shield helps. CME can travel from Sun to Earth in less than 3 hours. If you are in space, you are doomed.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by krs678
 


Yes they did send astronauts to the moon !



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Ok, one thing that strikes me as odd...

We have satelites orbiting the earth, that can zoom to greater than 1 M resolution. This means that we can zoom in on just about any golf course, and view the flag on the green. I can do this with my basic google mapping functions.

Are we really to believe that there is no technology that can zoom in that close on the moon? I've never questioned the moon landing, but not being able to located the flag in a smaller area than the earth seems odd...



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by denver22
 


That does not qualify as proof of ANY sort Mr Cookie Caller. So you believe in everything that you are shown by NASA, righty? Who has verified that the "feather" is indeed what you expect it to be? Have you had that feather in your hands? Could there not be a nail in it or some other manipulation if it indeed was a hoax? How can you be sure NASA did not fool you?

If I take a hammer and a feather that has a nail in it, well then - yup! Both arrive at the same time right here on earth. Amazing, huh?

Invalid evidence. Try again.

edit on 31-8-2012 by mrMasterJoe because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


Actually Mythbusters confirmed this myth. Yes you do get less wet running through the rain. Opposed to just walking through it.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by Turkenstein
reply to post by miniatus
 


Why can we not see the giant flag, they planted, through our telescopes?



I'm wondering the same thing. Have you all seen the resolution of the Mars photo we're getting back recently? Amazing. If we can send photos of that resolution from a rover on Mars, surely we can see many many times more detail of the moon's surface from earth or from satellites than the photos the public has been shown. Instead we get these crappy photos of "tracks" from the lunar rovers. Seriously? We should be able to count the stars on those flags with the technology we now have.


Uhm the mars"ORBITER"photos are taken from a satellite actually IN mars orbit with current technology cameras and optics.
Nasa got pictures of several the landing sites from a recent moon probe.
www.nasa.gov...
Seriously this topic has been done to death and beyond here. and proven beyond much doubt the landings happened as reported. But just on time in 6monthsor so another basement "radiologist" will determine" they could never have survived the van-allen belts..
edit on 31-8-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
12
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join