Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Did nasa really send astronauts to the moon?

page: 24
12
<< 21  22  23    25 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by AngryAlien
 


Well why don't you contact NASA and ask them?

NASA contact

Like Phage said I also think the current images of the landing sites are very cool.

How much resolution in a picture would it take to satisfy you?




posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by AngryAlien
 


I never said anything about a dedicated sattelite, though I thought the LRO WAS a dedicated moon observation platform (guess it's not).
Visual imagery is only one of its functions.


I would love to have a high res photo of the area on my wall.
Actually, I prefer the images taken at the time of the landings. Much more of a "being there" feeling.


I just find it weird that they didn't take better photos of the moon, or put a better camera on the LRO.
The images of the Moon are spectacular. Apparently you don't really understand what "a better camera" would entail. Apparently you don't understand the LRO mission.


Not me, that's why I'm debating it until it makes sense to me...
You are not debating. You are complaining about not getting what you want.

BTW, for the record, it seems that you actually are a hoax believer. Your "debate" follows that line of reasoning quite closely.


You know, most of the time I find your posts spot on, but today you just want to be condescending. I know it sucks when the mighty Phage can't come up with a reasonable and logical answer to a question, but hey I can't help that. If you want to actually discuss my questions, using some reasonable explainations, feel free. If you just want to call me a complainer for asking some questions, about a topic that I'm trying to understand, then that is your problem.

Asking questions about the resolution capabilites of our sattelites is far from me saying: "The moon landing was fake, where's the crater from when they took off?!!?!?" I've said before, that this is the 1 and only question that I have regarding the moon landing site, and it didn't even come up until someone posted the "best resolution images" in this thread. Clearing it up would be nice, but don't feel obligated to do it all on your own, Phage ( I know you can't).



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by AngryAlien
 


Well why don't you contact NASA and ask them?

NASA contact

Like Phage said I also think the current images of the landing sites are very cool.

How much resolution in a picture would it take to satisfy you?



I wouldn't mind some high res photos of the site at sub 1M resolution. And I didn't ask NASA, because I posted it in this forum thread that is discussing the Moon landing. Your answer of "Ask NASA" is assinine and I could just use that to end any thread. Contribute or GTFO.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by AngryAlien
 


I know it sucks when the mighty Phage can't come up with a reasonable and logical answer to a question, but hey I can't help that. If you want to actually discuss my questions, using some reasonable explainations, feel free.


I have discussed your questions. I have provided the answers. LROC provides images at the resolution required for its mission. Its mission is not to provide wall posters of the Apollo landing sites at extremely high resolutions.
www.nasa.gov...

You want a camera with a larger mirror. A larger mirror takes up space. A larger mirror adds weight. A larger mirror adds expense. A larger mirror would mean sacrifices elsewhere in the mission. In case you weren't aware of it, NASA does not have an unlimited budget.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by AngryAlien
 


I wouldn't mind some high res photos of the site at sub 1M resolution.

You have been provided with them.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by AngryAlien

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by AngryAlien
 


Well why don't you contact NASA and ask them?

NASA contact

Like Phage said I also think the current images of the landing sites are very cool.

How much resolution in a picture would it take to satisfy you?



I wouldn't mind some high res photos of the site at sub 1M resolution. And I didn't ask NASA, because I posted it in this forum thread that is discussing the Moon landing. Your answer of "Ask NASA" is assinine and I could just use that to end any thread. Contribute or GTFO.



Typical HB response. You expect others to explain everything to you because you are either too lazy or too stupid to go and find out for yourself.

Yeah, like your "why can't I this" and "why isn't there that" contributes so much to this thread.

Brilliant.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by AngryAlien
 


I can answer your question about NASA sending a purpose built imaging satellite to the moon with one question: Why?

NASA has a finite budget and if someone would suggest spending several hundred million dollars to put a spy satellite in orbit of the moon just for some promotional photos, they'd probably be laughed out of the scientific community. Everyone on the planet knows what the Apollo landing sites look like, there's thousands of pictures of it taken at ground level. Why would anyone be bothered to image something that's already been photographed from every possible angle? The technology exists, and while challenging, it would be a relatively easy task to accomplish, but there's just no money with which to do it.

To sum it up, there's no money and there's no reason.



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by AngryAlien
 


I know it sucks when the mighty Phage can't come up with a reasonable and logical answer to a question, but hey I can't help that. If you want to actually discuss my questions, using some reasonable explainations, feel free.


I have discussed your questions. I have provided the answers. LROC provides images at the resolution required for its mission. Its mission is not to provide wall posters of the Apollo landing sites at extremely high resolutions.
www.nasa.gov...

You want a camera with a larger mirror. A larger mirror takes up space. A larger mirror adds weight. A larger mirror adds expense. A larger mirror would mean sacrifices elsewhere in the mission. In case you weren't aware of it, NASA does not have an unlimited budget.



Hi Phage. You are correct, you have provided me with your answers. Unfortunately, my questions were not exclusive to the LROC system, I just meant to use it as an example. We both know that there are satellites that are completely capable of taking better photos than the LROC.

I don't want a camera with a larger mirror, per se, though it would help to obtain better photos of the landing site.

NASA does not have a unlimited budget, correct. According to Wiki (which everyone hates) their average budget per year is 15.818 billion dollars. In 2009, it was $17,782,000,000. LROC cost $504,000,000. That leaves only $17,278,000,000 for 2009, so you're right, the budget isn't limited.


You have been provided with them.


I will need to look at the pictures again, but they did not look like even 1 M resolution to me, maybe it's just the quality...


Originally posted by seabhac-rua

Typical HB response.





Hmmm, I don't even know what an "HB response" is. I mean I come here quite a bit, but haven't heard that one yet (no need to reply to that, you'll just waste our time)


Originally posted by seabhac-rua
You expect others to explain everything to you because you are either too lazy or too stupid to go and find out for yourself.



Cool story, however, it has some factual errors. I expect nothing, I know about mapping, specifically mapping at 1M resolution and below. I have researched lots of things before making my posts, such as some of the operating parameters of the LROC, along with additional research on GeoEye.



Originally posted by seabhac-rua
Yeah, like your "why can't I this" and "why isn't there that" contributes so much to this thread.

Brilliant.


Actually, my comments have contributed to the thread, as you are here replying to it (though your reply is of little value or intelligence). I really don't see the problem with asking a question in a thread, about the topic...


Originally posted by captainpudding
reply to post by AngryAlien
 


I can answer your question about NASA sending a purpose built imaging satellite to the moon with one question: Why?

NASA has a finite budget and if someone would suggest spending several hundred million dollars to put a spy satellite in orbit of the moon just for some promotional photos, they'd probably be laughed out of the scientific community. Everyone on the planet knows what the Apollo landing sites look like, there's thousands of pictures of it taken at ground level. Why would anyone be bothered to image something that's already been photographed from every possible angle? The technology exists, and while challenging, it would be a relatively easy task to accomplish, but there's just no money with which to do it.

To sum it up, there's no money and there's no reason.


Thank you for the courteous reply. My question keeps being mis-understood though...

I don't want NASA to build anything. LROC was used, simply as an example of technology (as was GeoEye). I've simply asked, why there aren't better resolution photos of the Apollo sites. I don't care who gets them, china,us, russia, some guy on a private island with money to blow. It was a simple question, that appears to not be simple to answer, though your answer is the best one yet. No one wants to do it for the cost, as they see no value in it. Thank you for not dancing around the question.



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainpudding
reply to post by AngryAlien
 


I can answer your question about NASA sending a purpose built imaging satellite to the moon with one question: Why?

Playing devil's advocate here: To study the effects of decades of exposure. Have things moved? Collapsed? Is there evidence of pitting from meteorites, or outgassing, etc? Are there any chemical or physical changes to the materials of the NASA hardware? If we are contemplating long-term, livable facilities on the moon or other planets, it would be good to know what can happen as an artificial object ages in that environment. A rover would almost certainly be superior to a satellite for these purposes, but I don't imagine they'd want to drive a rover all over the historic sites.



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli
 


Like you said, a satellite would be pretty useless to study those effects, most of the really interesting stuff would happen at close to microscopic levels. All you'd be able to see from orbit would be (maybe) impact pitting, to get any relevant data they'd have to drive a rover to the landing site, cut off a chunk of the lander and analyse it. Like you said, not something they'd want to do. Also as far as I know they know what the exposure rates (radiation, micrometer, etc) are so testing can be done in simulation. Lastly there's I don't think there's much importance in finding out how something designed to last a few weeks would hold up over 40+ years.


jra

posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by AngryAlien
I don't want a camera with a larger mirror, per se, though it would help to obtain better photos of the landing site.


The mirror is the most important part of obtaining higher resolution images.


I will need to look at the pictures again, but they did not look like even 1 M resolution to me, maybe it's just the quality...


There is a really easy and simple way to find out. If your image is at 50cm per pixel, then simply count how many pixels make up the length of the LM in the image and compare that to the known dimensions of the LM.

For example. I used M109032389LE which is a 53cm resolution image of Apollo 17. I counted about 8 pixels for the main body of the LM. At 53cm per pixel that comes out to 4.24m. The LM is listed as being about 4.1m in width, so I'm within the ballpark there. The best thing to do would be to get all the images for one landing site and check them all, just to compare.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainpudding

To sum it up, there's no money and there's no reason.


Explain the Keep Out Zones. What is NASA hiding? Why did NASA put Charles Bolden, ex-military general, ex-astronaut in charge of NASA?

Charles Bolden has a very peculiar skill set. He has military experience with No-Fly Zones in Iraq (Operation Desert Thunder). And he is an experienced space shuttle astronaut and commander.



jra

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Explain the Keep Out Zones. What is NASA hiding?


Please explain how the "keep out zones" can actually hide anything.


Why did NASA put Charles Bolden, ex-military general, ex-astronaut in charge of NASA?


Firstly, I believe it's the President chooses the administrator, not NASA. Secondly, he was probably chosen due to his past experience working for NASA.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter


Explain the Keep Out Zones. What is NASA hiding?


Explain how an un-enforced, not legally binding, friendly request between members of the scientific community to protect an historical site has any bearing on anything?

Explain how a 75m buffer can in any way hide something? I can buy an off the shelf lens for under $1000 that could easily take close up shots from that distance.

PS Thanks for taking my advice from a previous post by re-hashing different, old, debunked nonsense



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   


People who think we landed on the moon are some of the worst people to debate with, they are just as bad as athiests. No matter the amount of proof and evidence you provide "You're wrong" Don't debate with them it's a complete waste of time. You could go back and forth for years about this and still never get anywhere.
reply to post by GR1ill3d
 


Work's both way's Einstein.
Pretty childish.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by mark1167
 


Pretty dishonest of you to alter the quote to make its meaning 100% opposite of the author's original quote, don't you think?



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 03:42 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


Well lets just think about it would YOU want to destroy say the pyramids of Egypt for example after all they have served their purpose are well documented so should we just demolish them and build on the site?

The Apollo sites could in theory be there as long as the pyramids or many times longer if left alone that's the point mans first footsteps of the surface of the Earth why wouldn't they want to preserve them?

The logic you people use at times is unbelievable!!!
edit on 4-10-2012 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


Well lets just think about it would YOU want to destroy say the pyramids of Egypt for example after all they have served their purpose are well documented so should we just demolish them and build on the site?


The muslims have actually done that already. Limestone taken from the pyramids was used in other places to construct "new" buildings.

As you know, the pyramids and Egyptian tombs have already been looted countless times. Why should the Apollo sites be treated like religious holy sites??? It reeks of scientific fraud.

These are scientific sites! They should be closely examined with the greatest attention to detail by *any country, any corporation* that can get close enough to this "government junk" - quote courtesy of astronaut Ed Mitchell, Apollo 14.

It would certainly be a great historic human and scientific achievement to re-examine all this alleged Apollo "moon" landing junk? But NASA proudly and publicly announced they wish to keep scientists and nations and corporations AWAY!


The Apollo sites could in theory be there as long as the pyramids or many times longer if left alone that's the point mans first footsteps of the surface of the Earth why wouldn't they want to preserve them?

The logic you people use at times is unbelievable!!!


Speaking of Egypt, did you know that Farouk El-Baz (NASA's special geologist who organized and catalogued all the original LO images) was hired at Bellcomm by Richard Nixon's brother?

The leaps of faith you people use at times is not logical!!!
edit on 10/4/2012 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)
edit on 10/5/2012 by SayonaraJupiter because: scientific, proudly



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 12:50 AM
link   
It amazes me that in the information age that we live in today that people are unable to look up credible information and educate one's self. I have personally read hundreds of these types of threads.

The information is out there. And i am not talking about YouTube.

I am not trying to be a negative Nancy here. I just think that people should do a little research here.

In the time that it took you to write your opening(and only) paragraph, you could have done a Google search on the answers you seek on this beat to death subject.

Sorry, this iS the way I feel..

Do the research, without YouTube.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


It's a catch 22. If these people were even capable of research, logic or independent thought, they wouldn't believe in the moon hoax. If information is spoon fed to them by pathetic snake oil salesmen (librarians, cab drivers, carpenters etc . . .), they don't want anything to do with it.





new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 21  22  23    25 >>

log in

join