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.
Originally posted by turbonium1
NASA had very realistic-looking moon models. The model used in the video is not realistic at all, nor is it meant to be. It's described as a simulation of how the basic approach would appear. That's all. It's hardly meant to be an authentic, highly detailed replica of the moon. It's about on par with cheese-textured moon models used in 40's and 50's sci-fi flicks,
Maybe that's the reason NASA released this video - to imply their models looked so fake compared to the, ahem, 'real' moon in the Apollo clips and images. Indeed, those faulty comparisons have already started.
Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Or maybe this is how all of the the simulator videos really looked, and the videos were released for informational, historical and public relations purposes.
Origin ally posted by Soylent Green Is People
I grew up in the 1970s, and remember seeing what flight simulators looked like (the kinds for military planes, where the camera would fly over a model terrain), and it was clear they never looked like the good movie special effects from the time -- nor were they trying to look like movie special effects. They served a different purpose than movie special effects.
edit on 2/10/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)
More important is that it (the article) shows NASA was technically capable of faking the Apollo moon landings.
They had simulations for an LM landing.
They had simulations for tracking a spacecraft all the way to the moon and back (ie: simulated data).
They had simulations for astronauts in a 1/6 g.lunar environment.
They had physical simulations of the lunar surface.
And so on..
Originally posted by turbonium1
Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Or maybe this is how all of the the simulator videos really looked, and the videos were released for informational, historical and public relations purposes.
Could be - this is a speculative point, just our personal opinions.
More important is that it (the article) shows NASA was technically capable of faking the Apollo moon landings. They had simulations for an LM landing. They had simulations for tracking a spacecraft all the way to the moon and back (ie: simulated data). They had simulations for astronauts in a 1/6 g.lunar environment. They had physical simulations of the lunar surface. And so on..
Apollo calls them "simulation models" and "simulated lunar surface", while 2001:A Space Odyssey calls them "special effects" and "stage sets".
A rose by any other name.....
Originally posted by DJW001
Note the use of the plural. They required different machines for different aspects of the task. None of them were visually convincing.
Originally posted by DJW001
But real data was acquired in real time all the way to the Moon, not only by NASA and affiliated receivers, but by Soviet and even amateur observers.
Originally posted by DJW001
So how did they create three billion year old rock samples, for example?
Note the use of the plural. They required different machines for different aspects of the task. None of them were visually convincing.
By and large, the real, functional machines in the Apollo era ...were not visually convincing at all.
That's where the fake machines come in. Design a visually convinciing machine, not a functional one.
For example, the LLTV / LLRV were real, functional machines., while the LM was the visually convincing fake machine . It's very obvious (to the impartial observer, at least) that the LLTV / LLRV iwas the real lunar lander - a very crude machine. The LM iis the futuristic looking, fake machine ,- with a few 'functional' knobs as a convincing special effect.
Originally posted by DJW001
But real data was acquired in real time all the way to the Moon, not only by NASA and affiliated receivers, but by Soviet and even amateur observers.
It was simply assumed to be real data, acquired in real time. They don't know if it IS real data, or simulated data. Only NASA knows the real source of the data.
I've heard about Soviets and amateurs tracking Apollo, but I've never seen any proof for these claims
Originally posted by DJW001
So how did they create three billion year old rock samples, for example?
Collect them in Antarctica, for starters.
A robotic probe will do the trick, also.
Or if you're sure that it won't be subjected to scientific analysis, just use a chunk if petrified wood. It's quite convincing as a 'moon rock'!!
Originally posted by DJW001
[Are you saying that all of the engineers on Earth failed to notice that the Apollo vehicles could not function as they were supposedly designed to?
No, I'm saying that all the engineers were ileft n the dark. The LM was impossible to assess - no tests on Earth, but have perfected it for moon landings, and for thr ascent, and for precision coupling to CM while in lunar orbit.
What's so difficult to believe about all that, right? .
Originally posted by turbonium1
For example, the LLTV / LLRV were real, functional machines., while the LM was the visually convincing fake machine . It's very obvious (to the impartial observer, at least) that the LLTV / LLRV iwas the real lunar lander - a very crude machine. The LM iis the futuristic looking, fake machine ,- with a few 'functional' knobs as a convincing special effect.
Originally posted by DJW001
All of the LM's specifications were publicly available. Airframe design, propulsion elements, everything. You are welcome to examine them using your engineering knowledge, as no doubt Soviet and Chinese engineers did. As for the impossibility of assessing it, what were all those tests for? Not just the ones on Earth in vacuum chambers and firing stands, but the ones in orbit and in cislunar space.
Please stop arguing from ignorance and incredulity. Even your sock puppets are getting embarrassed for you.
No, it's your Ignorance of basic scientific method.
Suppose I build a 'time machine'..I give you the specs for it. I give you the test results of its sub-components.
However, you can't see a demonstration of the finished product, to verify that it actually does work. But you'll see a film of it in action!
I mean, if you think that's good enough for an LM, then it's good enough for my time machine, right?.
Originally posted by turbonium1
...Suppose I build a 'time machine'..I give you the specs for it. I give you the test results of its sub-components.
However, you can't see a demonstration of the finished product, to verify that it actually does work. But you'll see a film of it in action!...
Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
The basic thing that makes them LM work -- the basic method of propulsion -- is well understood by many, many people. It's not some esoteric cutting-edge advanced physics theoretical mumbo-jumbo (which I suspect would be the case in your time-travel analogy)...
...Instead, the workings of the LM is just rocket thrusters and Newton's Laws of Motion. Very simple in concept and able to be understood by a large number of engineers -- or simply people who understand engineering concepts and Newton's Laws. If you give any propulsion engineer the spec of the LM, he'll say "yep -- I see how it worked". .
You seem to feel the LM is more "mysteriously magical" than it really was. Sure -- it was a great engineering achievement to make all of the systems work together nine times without a major failure, but it wasn't magic. It was just good engineering.
edit on 2/17/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)
Engineers/scientists understood the scientific principles/, laws, etc. which were behind the LM's creation..
Just like my time machine - based on well-known scientific principles and laws.
Originally posted by DJW001
I can explain all of the details of the LM's systems in terms even you can understand.
Originally posted by DJW001
Okay, explain how your hypothetical time machine works. I'm waiting....
I'm waiting for proof on the LM.
Originally posted by mrwiffler
reply to post by turbonium1
One good source of evidence that the LM was a functioning piece of hardware is the wealth of documentation available , photographic and written, detailing Northrop Grumman's intensive and obviosly expensive efforts in designing and constructing it.
So hundreds of Northrop Grumman workers were in on the conspiracy? And the company was prepared to spend all that time, effort and more to the point, money in making a fake lunar lander? That's a bit silly really. They were (and are) at the forefront of aerospace technology. More likely that the lander they built wasn't fake.
edit on 24-2-2013 by mrwiffler because: speling
Who would be in any sort of position at Grumman to know if it's a fake or genuine? A few at the top, that's it.
Everyone else would have a specific job, with no clue.
Nobody at Grumman would really know if it worked, for that matter.It was built to NASA's specs, then shipped off. It was never tested on Earth, so nobody could see if it worked at all.
It is odd that current lunar lander designs are designed as 'Earth' landers first, while the Apollo LM was not. Think about that..
They didn't need to build an Earth version of the LM first, to see that it worked. They went directly into building the lunar lander.- the LM. And the closest to an Earth version was the clunky LLRV/LLTV.
I guess they were much smarter in the 60's, being able to pull off such miracles of design!