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.

 

Let's get live video footage from the moon - on the moon

page: 6
41
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by r2d246
 




TPTB are theives! High on there agenda is robbing the common man. That happens via taxes mostly. But for those taxes there has to be accountability. So they appropreate so much for nasa each year. At that time they spent 100 billion on 1 season of appollo.

Paranoia.

I'm curious to find out if you feel the current darling mission, Curiosity, is also fake?

Your rants gloss over one glaring point. The scientists and astronomers.
Do you believe they (real scientists) don't really want real answers to space questions?
or
Do you think TPTB are feeding them (real scientists) fake answers. And they swallow them hook line and sinker.

The way you post about space falls into one of three categories.
1.You live in the moment. If you haven't seen it yourself (on tv) and in your lifetime, then it didn't happen. Older generations were incapable of grand feats.
2.You live in four walls and the internet. You have no real world experience in life. You have not seen the real brilliance and real stupidity of people in the world.
3.You have underlying issues that go far beyond space and need attention of professionals.

But one thing you need to consider.
Do you consider yourself one of the very few and most brilliant people in the world? You are one of a very few people on the planet that have figured out the space conspiracy.
You understand the physics involved and can identify the fraud.
You understand all the engineering past and present and can identify the fraud.
You understand the financial accounting and can identify the fraud and theft.
Out of all the billions of people the have lived and died in the last 40 years ONLY YOU and a handful of others have figured it all out.

If you are that smart please pick my lottery numbers for this week.
If you don't consider yourself that smart then consider that you might be totally wrong.




posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by r2d246
 




Maybe because it's impossible.

Naw, the moon just isn't worth the expense. NASA's budget is not what it was back in those days. There really isn't anything of value on the moon, particularly when compared to the expense of going there and back. Did you visit any of the links I have posted? The equipment necessary for a moon mission is expensive and still experimental in nature. Honestly, have you looked into the Apollo documentation just to get an appreciation of the expanse of that technology and the resultant equipment? It is very much worth your while to dig deeply into those sites.

Voters seem to encourage Congress to spend the money elsewhere. If you and eveyone else would petition Conress to return to the moon and open a manned mission to Mars, I am sure they'd get the funding to do so.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by r2d246
 




TPTB are theives! High on there agenda is robbing the common man.

How juvenile!

NASA expended the money by hireing companies all over America to DESIGN and BUILD everything related to the space program. NASA administered and coordinated the project and reviewed designs. Eveything else was accomplished by ordinary people who had JOBS with all of those NASA contractors. I hired on with Sperry Rand just as the Apollo program was winding down. I worked on the Skylab project. In doing so, I met many of the Apollo guys. I have no doubt that they were capable of landing men on the moon. I have no doubt that they were capable of detecting a farce. Geez, man, 400,000 scientists and engineers not on government payroll, and you think that many people could be bamboozled? Wow, you must overestimate yourself and the "doubters".

Like so many, I was paid from funds from NASA's budget. That tax money wasn't given out as welfare, it was earned.

Go read the documentation about the space program. It is a great deal more entertaining, not to mention enlightening, than the drivel postulated by the "doubters". The main problem with the "doubters" is that they are not scientists or engineers. They are speculating about things which they no absolutely nothing about. Heck, they really don't know much about photography, and that is their primary source of "debunking material".

Just go read about the Ranger/Surveor/Mercury/Gemini/Apollo programs! Stop speculating out of ignorance! If you find a fault in the documentation, you can be a hero to the "doubters" community! Do you know what? Not a single doubter has actually read the material. That is about like speculating on the rise and fall of Julias Ceasar without consulting history books.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by absente
 

Here is an article regarding translunar trajectories. It is aimed at small companies who ponder such missions:

Transluna r Trajectories

Do look at the NASA material. It is a great starting point ... "don't reinvent the wheel" sort of material.

Here is a reference to Hughs development of Surveyor, which was the first of the US soft landers. Well, most of them soft-landed:

Springer Leak, Hughes' Surveyor



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by LifeIsPeculiar
 

That trans lunar trajectory link was bery interesting. But there's one problem.

Those that think there's a conspiracy don't care about documents like that. Plus they cannot begin to understand the info within.

All they know is the picture don't look right. Hense conspiracy.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Yeah but the OP hasn't said that he is on that wagon. He is interested in making a rocket and sending a rover to the moon. So those links are good. Let the HB's ignore them.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Saint Exupery
 
and psykoOps.....

Explain to me then how all those rockets, launchers, space vehciles, orbitors, landers, rovers, space suits, communication etc etc etc etc....

All just happen to work, virtually flawlessly without anyone dying in all 12 or so missions they did, without the slightest hitch (except for a faked lack of oxogen which they overcame, of course)...

And did all this.... without any computers???

The computers they had at that time had so little computing power!!!! NOW THINK ABOUT THIS.....

The computer guidence system of Appollo 11 had approximately a 2k processor.

So go up a few decades you get the Apple 2E a common home PC that had about 16k, and slow as hell! Then later the Commodor 64k again slow as hell.

And we're not even getting close to the 286,386,486's that were to come, also all slow as hell.

So they expect us to believe that this computer that operated at 2k was able to do all the processing necessary to get the most advanced space vehicle to the moon and back again without virtually any problems at all?

That's like saying I'm gonna circum navigate the globe using a row boat. Most calculators have more processing power now a days. I just find it hard to believe. That's like saying a crappy dollar store calculator that barely works was the brains of this mammath super powerful space craft. A semi tractor trailer doesn't run on a lawn mower engine. Especially not when going on the longest mission in human history.

But they did have hollywood to save the day! In hollywood everything works out perfectly by the end of the show. The hero gets back safely, the good guys win, the bad guys (USSR) lose the race.

2k calcultor cpu can get you to the moon and back ahh? oh really??? wake up. So with my iphone I should be able to get to the stars and beyound! I should be able to use it to power the USS Enterprise!


edit on 22-10-2012 by r2d246 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   
News flash for you. They didn't just happen to work and there were casualties. Also you are completely forgetting apollo 13. Not a huge success that one. They had computers which were good enough for the job. On top of that houston had more powerfull computers which then transmitted data to the crews. Not to mention that they had 3 of the most powerfull computers on the planet, the human brain to boot.
Now you explain how they fake 1/6th gravity and vacuum in hollywood with 70's technology and the biggest experts on the field couldn't do the same untill proper cgi came along. Explain how apollo photographs match up exactly with the terrain as only recently discovered. Explain how we can have photographs clearly showing apollo hardware and tracks on the moon exactly as they were left.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by r2d246
 


So they expect us to believe that this computer that operated at 2k was able to do all the processing necessary to get the most advanced space vehicle to the moon and back again without virtually any problems at all?
What do you think is so difficult about calculating orbital trajectories. It's just a matter of ballistics.


I just find it hard to believe.
You also have no understanding of what the requirements are.



I should be able to use it to power the USS Enterprise!
What does a computer have to do with a power supply?



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by absente
 


This is just a an idea, i know that multiple lunches would be expensive, but in order to not compromise the mission at the initial lunch would it not be a good idea to send a probe outside of our own atmosphere first? using balloon or any other none expensive methods. (to test out connection, and conditions of space "first hand" so to say)

The only reason why i say this is because some people do have a good theory that if space is a vacuum then there would be no temperature, no cold or hot since those both require interaction of molecules. Just a theory but would you not agree going with the official statements about space outside our earth's atmosphere could be in place in order to stall such projects as yours? Meaning they say there is temperature and radiation and what not, so you build your device according to their "specifications" and that is what directly unable's your gear to shutdown, or be interrupted, would you take that into consideration?



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by r2d246
 




So they expect us to believe that this computer that operated at 2k was able to do all the processing necessary to get the most advanced space vehicle to the moon and back again without virtually any problems at all?

No, most of the processing was done on the ground.

In an ideal world, on an ideal mission, the onboard computers could have run the mission.

But in reality the inertial guidance system had drift. Ground control kept close tabs on the actual location and radioed course corrections.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by r2d246
 




So they expect us to believe that this computer that operated at 2k was able to do all the processing necessary to get the most advanced space vehicle to the moon and back again without virtually any problems at all?

If you would JUST GO READ THE DOCUMENTATION, you would discover that the Apollo onboard computer was a 64K WORD machine. It was hooked into the S-band radio system so that different software could be loaded from mission control on the ground as they setup for each phase of the mission.

There was a constant flow of information from the inertial guidance system to the control centers, a constant feed from tracking stations to the control centers. That information was "munched" by great big numerical processors like Univac 1108s, CDC 7600s, and so ... and then appropriate control information was uplinked to the Apollo computer. Those controls were then applied to the attitude thrusters, the main engine gimbles, the engine throttles, and the burn timings.

Just READ, for crying out loud!



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by XaniMatriX
 





The only reason why i say this is because some people do have a good theory that if space is a vacuum then there would be no temperature, no cold or hot since those both require interaction of molecules.

Near-vaccum in space is not a theory. The wide assortment of satilites that orbit the earth for your convenience are proof of the concept.

If the sun shines on YOU or your spacecraft, you get hot. Lights, including visible and infrared, don't need a medium for propagation. So you get hot on the sunward side, and can manage to radiate some of your heat away on the shaded side.

Just go READ about areospace topics, then go create theories of the master mind. All of this is in the public domain.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by r2d246
 




And did all this.... without any computers???

For an introduction regarding the navigation solution see: Apollo Navigation in a nutshell

There really is material that describes how all of that was accomplished. There are even after mession reports that access how realities compared to the plans.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by r2d246
 




Explain to me then how all those rockets, launchers, space vehciles, orbitors, landers, rovers, space suits, communication etc etc etc etc....

Actually, I have been trying realy hard to provide you with the material for which you ask. Oddly enough, you don't really seem to be looking for answers.

I have been doing your research, and find it quite rewarding and interesting. The following two documents really aught to be of some interest to you:

Apollo Guidance and Navigation, Volume One

Apollo Guidance andNavigation, Volume Two

edit on 10/22/2012 by LifeIsPeculiar because: Volume Two linked to Volume One PDF



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by r2d246
 




The computers they had at that time had so little computing power!!!!

The onboard computer was indeed tiny, but the stuff on the ground was awesome!

I need to offer up a bit of correction on the onboard memory size ... which I was recalling from memory. The machine was sized in words, not bytes. It was a 16-bit processor with 2048 words of read/write memory. They stored data constants and control operands in there. That is 4096k bytes. The program memory was braided magnetic ROM, with 36,864 words of software. That is 73,728 bytes.

They already knew the "servo" equations for controls, so the corection constants were computed on the ground and then uplinked to the read/write memory. As a backup, there was a hex keypad that could be used for manual entry of constants, variables, and servo processes.

Most of the controls were taken from ICBMs, and then extended for lunar operations.

When I was in Huntsville in 1972, I got to meet the new "Space Ultrareliable Modular Computer", and even hold it. It was basically a fully-sized IBM 360 with hardware floating point. It was about as large as the newer DVD/VHS players of today.

Here is a link to detailed information regarding the Apollo computer: Apollo Guidance, Navigation, and Control



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by LifeIsPeculiar
reply to post by XaniMatriX
 





The only reason why i say this is because some people do have a good theory that if space is a vacuum then there would be no temperature, no cold or hot since those both require interaction of molecules.

Near-vaccum in space is not a theory. The wide assortment of satilites that orbit the earth for your convenience are proof of the concept.

If the sun shines on YOU or your spacecraft, you get hot. Lights, including visible and infrared, don't need a medium for propagation. So you get hot on the sunward side, and can manage to radiate some of your heat away on the shaded side.

Just go READ about areospace topics, then go create theories of the master mind. All of this is in the public domain.


The theory i am talking about is that there is no temperature in vacuum of space, i am fully aware of space being a vacuum. (or the theory of it)

If the sun shines on you on earth, it has made contact with the atmosphere in order to create the feeling of heat, or cold since there is lack of contact of particles (or rays) with the atmosphere during night.

All i am pointing out is, even if you are right in front of the sun in space, you would't burn up like a match stick, or freeze to death also if you are in the abyss of space(how the theory goes). Confirming this would mean the budget wouldn't be so big and the weight can be reduced also, that is why i am asking about multiple or one small launch to see the true conditions of space before making the official decision, and if they would consider such a possibility.

Just an example please don't take this literally, but you fill a balloon with water and send it out (somehow). once the "craft" is in space, you release the balloon outside.

1: balloon pops due to space being a vacuum.
2: balloon freezes without popping confirming the extreme cold.
3: balloon burns up confirming the heat after exposure to the sun.
4: none of the above happen meaning we were lied to about space and it's conditions in order to frighten people about space exploration for reasons beyond me.

That was the point of my question, to deny or confirm popular beliefs of space by making a "practice" run.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by XaniMatriX
 




All i am pointing out is, even if you are right in front of the sun in space, you would't burn up like a match stick, or freeze to death also if you are in the abyss of space

So, how does heat get from the sun to the Earth?

As a matter of proven fact, you will get VERY HOT in space just because the sun shines on you. Space suits are pure white just to reflect as much sunlight as they can. This is not theory at all; and, it was proven LONG before there were missions in space.

The sun gives off radient energy across a wide spectrum; and that reaches earth to warm it. If you were in space, that very same radiation (light, IR,gamma,etc) would impinge upon you, causing YOUR MOLECULES to vibrate at a higher rate, which is what happens in hot substances.

You are proposing that only molecules of a gas are subject to the heating affects of radiant energy. That is simply not the case; for, even solids get hot from radient heat. Case in point: Leave a black cast iron fry pan in the sun. After it soaks awhile, measure its temperature. It will be a great deal hotter than the ambient air ... so, where did its heat come from? Answer: The fry pan soaked up some of the radiant energy that was not absorbed by the atmosphere.

Case two: Do you get a sunburn from the air or the sunlight itself? Answer: The sunlight itself!

Cheers!



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by XaniMatriX
 





Just an example please don't take this literally, but you fill a balloon with water and send it out (somehow). once the "craft" is in space, you release the balloon outside.

There is an easier way to conduct such an experiment. Take two blocks of aluminum. Polish one so that it is as shiny as it gets, paint the other one black. Put a thermocouple on both of them. Put both blocks into a bell jar, pass the thermocouple leads through a seal, and then draw a vacuum on them. (Yes wire leads passing through glass will be sealed: remember the vacuum tube?) Use an oil diffusion pump to draw a really hard vacuum. Expose the belljar (clear glass) to the sun and then observe the voltages on the thermocouples. What do you think you will see?

If you really want to try this, you can find a shop that makes neon signs to draw the vaccum for you. Pumps used to prepare refrigeration units for the coolant charge pull a pretty good vacuum; however, we want a really hard vacuum. Actually, I suspect the refregeration vacuum pump would be suffiecient to prove the point, since space isn't a really hard vacuum like that found in vacuum tubes.
edit on 10/22/2012 by LifeIsPeculiar because: Add the final paragraph.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by LifeIsPeculiar
 


Since you yourself are not made of vacuum, you will get hot. Light from the Sun will "excite" the molecules in your body or spacesuit and make them hot. It's not just the atmosphere that gets heated - any substance will, more or less. For example, high-mountain climbers protect their faces from sunburn, despite the cold temperatures.




top topics



 
41
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join