Did NASA just admit they never put Man on The Moon? [Video]

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation
Flight testing isn't that easy. I have seen several aircraft that everything looked great in the models and on paper, and when it flew it barely flew and wound up being canceled. Or it was terrible on paper and flew great in real life.

You can't compare radiation shielding tests with aircraft flight tests, these are not even related things.

-MM

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Yes you can. Radiation shielding changes the weight and balance of the craft. That means that during reentry it plays an important role. Aerodynamics plays just as important a role in space craft as for aircraft.

If you put too much weight near the top of the capsule, it could start to tumble during reentry. Too much to one side or the other, same result.

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

What do unmanned probes have to do with a manned mission? An unmanned craft can switch off if necessary. Do that with Orion and you kill the crew.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Here's one story about it, from 1989:

That pretty much puts this thread to bed since Russia confirms it.

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

I've asked you of sources for your claims that the Orion must take a trajectory that takes the spaceship through a more dangerous part of the Vann Allen Belts than Apollo

How many times can someone give the answer before you stop ignoring it?

You keep asking why the Orion would have to go through a thicker area, and the answer is that they don't know until it get's closer to the time for launch. It isn't hard to understand, but for some reason you seem to either not want to, or you just refuse to understand the simplest of answers...why?

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

It is you that is not listening; in this thread I've asked here, here, here, here, and here what is so "magical" about the Orion spacecraft computers that requires it to have new "challenges" that "must be solved" before sending people through the Vann Allen Belts, and so far none has come up with a likely answer, instead deniers keep bringing up the Apollo spacecraft computers as a qualified method of comparison - which it is not; rather the Orion's challenges should be compared with recent Moon missions - of which there are several.

Here you go...

On a deeper, longer mission, there are more chances for things to go wrong, more exposure to radiation and micrometeorites. Says Hopkins, “People on the ground, or astronauts on the space station, are protected from solar storms or galactic cosmic rays to some extent by the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field.” If a spacecraft is to push beyond that field, it will need more protection. This entails everything from better data (from high-powered computing) on where cosmic rays are penetrating a spacecraft to better sensors monitoring the radiation environment. “If it gets bad,” Hopkins says, “the astronauts can move some of the cargo around inside the spacecraft to create a ‘storm shelter’ in the spacecraft, a little bit like kids building a fort out of couch cushions.

It’s not just astronauts that need shielding: Modern avionics, says Hopkins, have smaller circuits and are thus more vulnerable to radiation. “In modern electronics, as everything has gotten smaller and everything is closer together, there’s a smaller amount of electric current required to flip the switches in the circuit. It used to be that getting hit with a stray particle of radiation wouldn’t have had enough energy to damage big wires and vacuum tubes,” he says. “As things get smaller, it’s easier to flip a bit from a zero to a one or to damage the electrical circuitry. That’s one reason that spacecraft might not use the latest and greatest computer chips like your iPad might use.” So shielding and redundancy have been added.

www.airspacemag.com...

Does that help?

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Sad to think the Apollo 4k computer works better than modern computers do to increased vulnerabilities have the same problem with modern rockets they need massive shielding on computer components just ask Russia when they are trying to develop new IBMs but we get cool swirls when they go heywire

But according to sum people here I guess they didn't actually have ICBMs or they wouldn't have a problem Russia faked them I'm sure lol

a reply to: Zaphod58

Triangulation gives a more accurate position though.

Picking up a signal from the moon is not evidence of a living person being on the moon.
as
A signal eminating from the moon could easily be bounced off or reflected off the moon.

C/O:
GOY

a reply to: dragonridr

A space station is much better than landing on the moon

What makes you say that?

There isn't really an economic reason to go to the moon other than tourism and we aren't at that stage.

Why do you say this..?
Please explain..

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

Is NASA backpedaling now that we're onto them? That article you are linking was written after this post was made on ATS, are they trying to clean up their previous mess now, or?

-MM

no.. it goes hand in hand with saying protecting the delicate electronics aboard the Orion is a challenge since they are much more sensitive to radiation than the Apollo computers..

these electronics need a guarantee of not failing when in an area of elevated radiation, these electronics are supporting life.

people have been saying this from the start, you just never thought of it.

It is you that is not listening; in this thread I've asked here, here, here, here, and here what is so "magical" about the Orion spacecraft computers that requires it to have new "challenges" that "must be solved" before sending people through the Vann Allen Belts, and so far none has come up with a likely answer, instead deniers keep bringing up the Apollo spacecraft computers as a qualified method of comparison - which it is not; rather the Orion's challenges should be compared with recent Moon missions - of which there are several. I highly doubt that the Orion Missions computer is so much more advanced than the 4M's launced this year (or any of the other six Moon missions launched in the last four years) that it is a "challenge" to shield the Orion spacecraft from radiation that the other Moon missions the last few years did not have to solve.

-MM

we are listening and we have answered to you multiple times.. YOU are failing to understand or listen to the answers, either to deliberately keep your own thread alive or simply you are failing to "get it"

the difference between Apollo and Orion crafts is the more sensitive circuitry on board Orion
the difference between Orion and an unmanned probe is that Orion is human-rated

what these mean is that should radiation affect the circuitry on an unmanned probe they will try to turn it off and on again to see if it fixes it, if they cannot fix it, it will be deemed to have malfunctioned of which happens in unmanned probes.

the problem for Orion is that it is Human-rated.. ie. it is required to transport humans safely to the destination AND back to earth.. unmanned probes are not required to return safely back to earth, if radiation affects an unmanned probe the worst case scenario is they lose the probe, Orion will NOT have this luxury.

for example, IF particle radiation were to affect the circuitry of the parachute deployment systems, mission control will not have enough time to recognise and rectify the problem before it smashes into the sea killing all on board.

originally posted by: cheery1
a reply to: dragonridr

A space station is much better than landing on the moon

What makes you say that?

There isn't really an economic reason to go to the moon other than tourism and we aren't at that stage.

Why do you say this..?
Please explain..

Simple space station saves fuel nI gravity to fight takes fuel to land and takeoff from the moon. Meaning launching from orbit is cheaper.

As for the moon itself again easier to mine asteroids than mine the moon. Everything we need can be found in space no need to land. For space exploration the moon is an unneeded step. The only reason to visit the moon is nastalgia basically tourism.

a reply to: dragonridr
A space station is much better than landing on the moon

WHY?

Simple space station saves fuel nI gravity to fight takes fuel to land and takeoff from the moon. Meaning launching from orbit is cheaper.

The space station has less gravity (not nil) it still has to contend with earths gravity.. any added weight would have to be compensated and it's a smaller target than the moon.. Plus there is also very limited room on a space station.
The fuel savings that would be made? I'm no expert.. but fuels still got to get off this planet to get to the space station anyway.
Plus with every delivery of supplies, fuel, parts & personel.. there are danger factors with docking to the actual space station etc.
******
Everything we need can be found in space no need to land. For space exploration the moon is an unneeded step

What makes you say that?

As for the moon itself again easier to mine asteroids than mine the moon. There isn't really an economic reason to go to the moon other than tourism and we aren't at that stage.

I wasn't suggesting mining the moon..
But it only seems logical that since the moon is an orbiting satellite.. and if we did go there 50yrs ago..
Why not whack a structure on there and viola.. you have a giant space station.. a massive target.. lots of room to move.
unmanned payloads could drop of supplies, no worries about knocking it out of orbit whilst docking either..
(even smack a hilton on too.. win win)

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Because again, there is no set trajectory! It won't be set until much closer to launch time. It MAY have to, it may not. It depends on the day, the month, even the YEAR they will launch.

If there is no set trajectory, then why must - as you claim - the Orion spacecraft be additionally shielded than other Moon missions in the later years (or even the Apollo Programs spacecrafts)? What is so "magical" about Orions computers to require extra Vann Allan Belts radiation shielding? If Orion needs more sheilding because it is a multipurpose spacecraft that might go to Mars at a later stage (Yeah, right...Like that is ever going to happen...), then don't you think they will change the shielding according to the requirements of the purposed mission, anything else would be crazy considering the cost per pound when venturing to space using the current public domain rocket technology.

-MM

www.nasa.gov...

Computer Function – Orion’s computer is the first of its kind to be flown in space. It can process 480 million instructions per second. That’s 25 times faster than the International Space Station’s computers, 400 times faster than the space shuttle’s computers and 4,000 times faster than Apollo’s. But to operate in space, it has to be able to handle extreme heat and cold, heavy radiation and the intense vibrations of launches, aborts and landings. And it has to operate through all of that without a single mistake. Just restarting the computer would take 15 seconds; and while that might sound lightning fast compared to your PC, you can cover a lot of ground in 15 seconds when you’re strapped to a rocket.

Come to think of it...
Who and in what..
Are taking supplies to the space station now that the shuttle isn't shuttling..?
Anyone know?
curious.

originally posted by: cheery1
a reply to: Zaphod58

Triangulation gives a more accurate position though.

Picking up a signal from the moon is not evidence of a living person being on the moon.
as
A signal eminating from the moon could easily be bounced off or reflected off the moon.

C/O:
GOY

Yes it is and no it couldn't.You can't just bounce a radio signal off a round but slightly irregular lump of rock a quarter of a million miles away and return it to earth and have hundreds of radio amateurs across the world and the Russians believe it was the point of origin.You need to study the propagation of radio waves before making crazy and uninformed statements like this.

They use Yagi antennas to receive this signal,which depending on the number of elements they have,are VERY directional.This means that maybe as little 15 or 20 degrees away from pointing directly at the source of the radio transmission,they lose it completely.(The more elements they have,the more gain they have but at the expense of making the angle they work through narrower).Or to put it another way,if they point it at the moon and they pick up the signal,that can only be the true source of that signal.

originally posted by: cheery1
Come to think of it...
Who and in what..
Are taking supplies to the space station now that the shuttle isn't shuttling..?
Anyone know?
curious.

Yes,NASA are. There was one scheduled for this summer when I was in Florida (the reason I went) but it got postponed until the day after I left.

a reply to: Imagewerx

Yes it is and no it couldn't.You can't just bounce a radio signal off a round but slightly irregular lump of rock a quarter of a million miles away and return it to earth

I'm no expert.. Nor "claim" to be..
So no need for petty labeling thankyou..

As for.. "bouncing it of a round rock" why not use a crator..

The Yanks & Ruskies have been bouncing signals off the moon for well over 50 years..
When it comes to the human, where there's a will there's a way.

Operation moon relay was one method of wireless communication by using the Moon as a natural communications satellite - a technique known as EME (Earth-Moon-Earth) communications. A project took place during the 1950s at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory.
another classified military espionage program known as Passive Moon Relay (PAMOR) which sought to eavesdrop on "Soviet" military signals reflected from the Moon.

Unless we humans are some kind of freak super genius's.. We won't know everything..
Please keep an open mind..

a reply to: Imagewerx

Yes,NASA are. There was one scheduled for this summer when I was in Florida (the reason I went) but it got postponed until the day after I left.

Ohh Bummer..
Was it a SpaceX..?

a reply to: cheery1

Until I looked it up again,I didn't remember them having any success with these experiments,for which I apologise (the photo of the USS Hancock with 'Moon Relay' written on the deck etc).But these were short duration and wouldn't be able to do the uninterrupted broadcasts we actually did receive from the astronauts on the surface of the moon because of how quickly the land based transmitter would be out of range.Back in the 1950/60s they wouldn't have been able to do a seamless transition from one transmitting station to another without someone noticing it.As has been said many times before on this subject,if the Russians and countless radio amateurs across the world were 100% convinced the transmissions came from the moon itself,there really can't be an argument here can there? If there had even be the remotest hint of any sort of suspicion that things weren't what the Americans claimed them to be,the Russians would have made damned sure the whole world knew about it before the Americans could think up any excuses.The Russians have never expressed any such suspicions,I think think this is a pretty good endorsement as to the validity of the moon landings,if the not the best one there is?

Don't forget (consult the history books if you weren't alive when this was all happening) the cold war was still in full swing in the late 1960s and the Russians and Americans certainly weren't the best of friends at this time.Although the USSR was winning the space race at this time with Sputnik,Laika the dog and Yuri Gagarin,they wanted to beat America to the moon more than anything else,imagine what a feather in their cap it would be if had won this part of the race? It would have been an even bigger feather in a bigger cap if they could have proved the Americans had faked the whole thing.

And no a crater would make crap reflector dish,it's nowhere near the parabola shape that's needed for them to work properly.

You would think by now that the US and Russia would have conducted
extended human flights through VABs to the point that technology and knowledge
would be extensive enough that the VABs would be a non-factor in space travel.

And having mastered the VABs, we should have had humans breaking records orbiting
the planet at increasing heights.

Instead, humans have stayed within the constraints of the VABs like a fish constrained by its fishbowl.
Unless you believe the fish story where the fish jumped out of the bowl eight times, and managed to jump
back in the bowl without harm.