Moon hoax question: Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment

page: 8
10
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 02:41 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions




posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 02:44 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 02:58 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by filterfishing
 


Where the hell did you come from? Anyway, I always welcome fresh ideas. Do you as well?

Ok here is a nice little thought experiment for you. Do you know the major difference between a simulator and a real mission?

G-Force.

Google it. You´ll be amazed.

And how about those bombs, hm? Where are they today? Are they still in use?

What use do you think an atom bomb would have for a country if nobody else would know about it?

Do you really think a secret super weapon would be a clever thing? Wouldn´t it rather be something like the, I don´t know, star wars program?

Naah, you´re right. Magic invisible bomb ring. That´s the ticket!



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by filterfishing
reply to post by DJW001
 


The rock problem is they have 800 lbs of rock. Could be tan bark for all we know. When a geologist, geochemist gets a piece to study, he or she does not go to the receiving lab to chip off their own piece. Rather, a tiny fragment of rock is sent to them. So it is very conceivable they have a few ounces of rock collected robotically and chip pieces off these representative samples and send them to scientists the whole while pointing to the 800 lbs of tan bark and saying it is all moon rock. We so do not know that.


Oh my god you are truly an amazing mind.

Okay, so in your world it went like this. They planned to hoax the world about a man landing on the moon. So they basically did 80 % of the work anyway, flew to the moon to send a robot there.

THEN (and this is the good part!) they somehow got the robot back along with some samples. They launched those two from the moon somehow (this part really interests me, care to guess how that could be done?) and brought all that safely back to earth.

And then you said that they probably threw around the same few little samples that they got from the mission you just made up to fool the experts.

Let me ask you as politely as I can what planet you think we live on? Because it must be a different one than mine.

Yours is a bubbly fantasy world that has unfortunately nothing to do with reality. I really do hope that you´re young. Because if your melon produces that level of delusions after you´re 30, then you are pretty much done for.

I can´t really take you serious. How old are you?



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by filterfishing
 


Please just stop. You´re just embarrassing yourself.

If you really want to play this game, then give me your top three reasons why the landings were a hoax.

Just three bullet points. Not three paragraphs.



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 03:30 PM
link   
that means that they faked 6 moon missions which make no sense at all... personally i believe we have men on the ground in some capacity for a long time now ...all black ops of course

another reason i believe we got to the moon is that no other country friend or foe has stated other wise .....

i'm more in favor of a cover up of what they found on the moon ...but i have no proof of this...only hear say



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 03:30 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 03:34 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 06:30 PM
link   
What is it with the 'returned bandees' trolling this thread.... that's about 8 very similar personalities all joined today and all posted here.and all banned ... pour quoi?

Apologies for this off topic post and feel free to delete but I have to say that these now banned posters have so disrupted the rhythm of this thread and that is why I'm mentioning them.



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cauliflower
reply to post by Nightaudit
 


Rationally from a physics and engineering standpoint the goals of a moon mission could be satisfied by implementing an economical robotic solution.

Historically satisfying the emotive needs of the masses has been the domain of the artistic community.

Back in the 60's I landed on the fence over this one, I believe they split it to increase the audience participation but it would have been a brilliant hack either way.



In answer, first paragraph, robotics are never 'economic' in a specialized field, not then not now, however astronauts were economic back then, and had more memory, and could perform more tasks than any robot, caveat is that a robot, back then may have been able to perform simple field experiments that the astronauts could not do, however the astronauts had their own simple experiments.
Sentence in the middle is a disconnect, since it is an assumption that people et al, see space exploration as a satisfaction for their emotions, when that is clearly not the case, since you admit to being "on the fence" "back in the 60's" in your last paragraph.
edit on 14-2-2013 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by Cauliflower
reply to post by Nightaudit
 


Rationally from a physics and engineering standpoint the goals of a moon mission could be satisfied by implementing an economical robotic solution.

Historically satisfying the emotive needs of the masses has been the domain of the artistic community.

Back in the 60's I landed on the fence over this one, I believe they split it to increase the audience participation but it would have been a brilliant hack either way.



In answer, first paragraph, robotics are never 'economic' in a specialized field, not then not now, however astronauts were economic back then, and had more memory, and could perform more tasks than any robot, caveat is that a robot, back then may have been able to perform simple field experiments that the astronauts could not do, however the astronauts had their own simple experiments.
Sentence in the middle is a disconnect, since it is an assumption that people et al, see space exploration as a satisfaction for their emotions, when that is clearly not the case, since you admit to being "on the fence" "back in the 60's" in your last paragraph.
edit on 14-2-2013 by smurfy because: Text.


In repost, first sentence, robotics are obviously 'economic' in the car manufacturing industry and many other industries relying on accurate implementation . I have no idea what the rest of your strained english means. Please elaborate.



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 




relying on accurate implementation

And repetitive tasks. That's where the economy comes into it. There weren't a lot of lunar rovers built and each was very expensive (and primitive).

When it comes to exploration humans can do a better job. When it comes looking at the terrain and figuring out the best way to place a reflector (a small reflector) on the Moon, a human is (and was) far superior to anything a robot could have done.

Human: Hmmm. Slope that would put the reflector at a bad angle. This looks better over here.
Robot: I'll just stop here. (no, they weren't autonomous but a remote controlled rover still would have problems with proper placement)

One of the Russian units was only found a while ago. It got lost. The other wasn't set well and doesn't give really good returns. In contrast, the Apollo reflectors have been used ever since they were set in place.
edit on 2/14/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Remote controlled cameras and robotic equipment is much less expensive to implement for space applications than sending humans into space. The cost of providing a safe journey for humans goes up exponentially with a guarantee of a safe return.

Providing the necessary environment for humans could not be done inexpensively. For example humans only tolerate a narrow range of temperatures and three astronauts would generate over 80,000 Kcalories of heat during the mission. What did they use to cool the space suits some kind of endothermic chemical reaction?

The missions that orbited Earth were not technically much more advanced than the high altitude test flights the US had been doing in the 1950's but a mission to the moon would be quantum leap in risk. We didn't have any problem aiming weather satellites from LEO in the early 60's so the same tech could be used with a comm delay half way to the moon.

A Remote controlled arm and camera system could easily place a reflector, leave footprints, gather samples whatever else they wanted to do. The Nasa engineers had this choice.



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Cauliflower
 




The Nasa engineers had this choice.

Except the mandate was to put a man on the Moon. So they didn't have a choice.
edit on 2/14/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Didn't that mandate come from president Kennedy's man on the moon speech in 1961?
Then Kennedy wanted to assassinate Fidel Castro in 1962.
And in 1963 he wanted the CIA to come clean about the cold war.



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Cauliflower
 


Absolutely. If you are sending men and women into space then real threat or no, the van Allen Belt issue must be addressed. By that I mean it must be studied very seriously . If men and women are not on board, it is more or less of no concern.

Keep in mind the Russians brought moon rocks back to the earth robotically. So it is easier robotically and it is less expensive. Just ask the Russians. If they were going to ultimately succeed with a manned program they would have had to have spent all the more money.

What happened when the Apollo 15 astronauts got the arrythmia problems? They had to study their hearts in great detail upon their return and it ultimately was determined that it was a potassium deficiency based problem responsible. How much did that cost to figure out? You can bet plenty. And you can also bet they could not ignore it.

When they cured Shepard of his middle ear problem they subsequently had to study him in great detail to be sure it was safe to send him into space. How much did that evaluation cost? Plenty. If the trips were unmanned, the Shepard trip would have cost that much less and that is a lot.

When Borman got sick on the Apollo 8 trip they had had to study the Apollo 8 capsule upon its return in great detail because they were worried that it was infected. They had to culture it for virus and bacteria. They had to culture the astronauts' stool looking for virus and bacteria. They had to draw their blood and run influenza titers to be sure that wasn't the problem. They had to go back and study the food supply to be sure there was no preformed staph toxin. All this took a tremendous amount of time and was very expensive.

This is just the tip of the iceberg, but because the US program used people the cost was very high.
edit on 14-2-2013 by neveradullmomentino because: then changed



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 09:58 PM
link   
This is quite interesting as part of a discussion about the reflector and the question of manned vs robotic lunar missions. C.O. Alley who was the principle investigator for the LRRR experiments wrote up his original proposal after Surveyor 7 successfully collected tv images from Table Mountain and Kitt Peak lasers.

articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...

That was January of 1968 that the Surveyor Mission took the pictures and March 1968 when Alley wrote up his proposal to NASA. Note how as far as Alley was concerned it could be done either way. Put a LRRR on a Surveyor probe and soft land that on the moon robotically or have Armstrong and Aldrin place it there. As it turns out they did it by way of a manned landing , hand placement. But if you pause to think about it and ignore the other experiments for the moment what would have cost more, giving the thing to Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin to place by hand or strapping the LRRR onto another Surveyor craft and floating that onto the lunar surface? The Surveyor approach would be much cheaper. That is obvious.

I guess the science value of the experiment was viewed as quite high and knowing the astronauts placed the thing by hand just in that one place probably had great appeal and so they went for the manned approach. It would be interesting to speak with Alley about what he remembers as far as how they decided manned landing or Surveyor to place the LRRR. Of course Alley is not an aeronautics person. He is an astronomer. But he might be in the best position to tell us the story.



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 10:13 PM
link   
One last interesting point about all of this. The Apollo 11 landing site coordinates became common knowledge in November of 1969 when the Apollo 11 Mission Report was published. With that information the Russians or anyone for that matter could range the moon. Now we are informed that the astronomy staffs at McDonald and Lick Observatories were supposed to keep the landing site secret because if the Russians knew the coordinates and ranged the moon then they presumably could measure the distances across the oceans as well as we could. But that story doesn't make any sense because the coordinates were published in November of 1969 and the cold war did not end for 20 years. The Russians would take those numbers and range the moon and measure the transocean distances too.

news.ucsc.edu...

So there must be some things they simply haven't told us about all of this. The mainstream story is not logical.

Very interesting.
edit on 14-2-2013 by neveradullmomentino because: spelling problem corrected



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Cauliflower
 


Nobody has argued here that an unmanned mission is impossible, or that it wouldn´t be cheaper than a manned flight. That is completely beside the point.

The logical fallacy remains that the reflectors didn´t make much sense in the hoax scenario in the first place. Especially when you consider such weird real world factors like cost for example.

The "hoax" was about a man on the moon. The reflectors would have added extra cost and risk while adding almost nothing to the party. The public didn´t care about the reflectors, and in fact 99 from 100 people on the street today have no idea what we are talking about here.





new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join