| Users Online Now: 2,269 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 606,262 | |
| Pageviews Today: 979,146 | Threads Today: 397 | Posts Today: 6,450 |
| 10:19 AM | ||
| Users Online Now: 2,269 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 606,262 | |
| Pageviews Today: 979,146 | Threads Today: 397 | Posts Today: 6,450 |
| 10:19 AM | ||
NASA lies: Apollo 16 Moon Hoax evidence (Conspiracy a proven fact) | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 30229243  Argentina12/18/2012 08:25 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Well if you REALLY are so ignorant you think ONE single magical wonder bolt would keep a massive space shuttle connected to a rocket, you are beyond salvation I fear. Honestly, can you CONSIDER the MASSIVE amounts of energy and direct FORCE put upon this, the THRUST, what is this bolt made of? KRYPTONITE? [link to www.septclues.com] [link to www.septclues.com] [link to www.septclues.com] How the HELL could those two beams with ONE single bolt hold that huge many tons large non-aerodynamically designed shuttle in place? Imagine the G-Forces and all, how does it keep in place? Imagine what sort of massive aerodynamic lift forces, at Mach+ speeds, must be withstood by the anchoring of the shuttle on its fuel tank. The pull forces exerted on that single, lone bolt must be phenomenal; to make matters worse, not only do we have one single bolt 'securing' the front end of the Shuttle - as well as the lives of these astronaughts and the success of all these shuttle launches, it is also a moving part ! (a fact which, notoriously, makes it even more vulnerable to disfunction/breakage - titanium or not titanium or KRYPTONITE brought in by Superman himself) Don't hand-wave. Calculate. Don't forget to include the SSME, which are also lifting the Orbiter component at the time. A friend of mine, who works with satellite technology for the army, already told me about this and how it is physically impossible for the space shuttle to be connected that way along with the trust and g-forces of the rocket itself, and I think he is better at calculating such than myself. But, do feel free to provide me some calculations showing that this could work! |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 29873597  United States12/18/2012 09:40 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Can I put you in my over,,,or better,,,my Big Green Egg bar-B-Q cooker in that suit,,,and will you volunteer...??? Let alone,,,,what proof are they radiation proof....are you willing to go into Chyrnobyl with 1960's technology?? Don't be crazy, and misreprosent history...they were on a surface that would boil water,,in a very flimsy suit...and we are to trust that on a foreign planet......ummmm ok. I dare you to volunteer.....remember,,,,our current astraunauts have NEVER been outside of the earths atmoshphere..... Why do hoaxies make up claims? Is it that the real statements by NASA are too hard to disprove, or is it that they don't understand what it is that is being said and present their own flawed version instead? Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183 Three things, well, there are a ton more, but how could they ever get a rocket into space, Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29873597 The usual way rockets do it. Sufficient thrust/mass ratio. Rockets, in fact, are used because they are one of the few things around with enough power density -- and the kind of power that can be turned into thrust with a high enough efficiency. then put the humans into spacesuits that could never block the solar radiation,,, Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29873597 I think we managed to solve the opacity problem with fabric a long time ago. Or do you think most clothing is transparent to visible light? You may not have said what you meant. However, most of the output of the sun is in the visual spectrum. Very little is in the form of ionizing radiation, and very little of THAT is of a type that would make it through as much as a sheet of paper. then, walk around on a moon in direct sunlight where we are told is hot enough to boil water on? We're told they had suits with tubes of water that cooled them...HOW DID THEY COOL THE WATER?? You need oxygen to, like an air conditioner, cool the air or water. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29873597 Not what is claimed. Part and parcel of the description of the coolant loop is how the water is chilled. And, no, you don't need oxygen to chill anything. Inside your refrigerator is essentially no airflow (aside from convective cells). What is happening on the inside of the shell of your refrigerator is expansion of a working fluid. Same thing -- EXACTLY -- that causes a CO2 cylinder to become cold when you let off gas. Or take a Peltier Junction, which is a solid state electronic device. In both of the above examples, a difference is created; it is colder inside the refrigerator, and hotter outside. In both, yes, that excess heat is then rejected via radiators -- but unlike the misnamed automotive "radiator," these are not primarily convective; they would work in a vacuum as well. In the case of the Apollo suits, the engine leveraged was, basically, the behavior of water in the lunar vacuum. Unlike the closed loop of your refrigerator, it was a wasteful process; water is allowed to boil off, cooling the heat exchanger it is dribbling out of. We are told the moon has no atmosphere, and hence, no oxygen, SOOOO, do those suits look big enough to lug around that much water, or oxygen?? Ummm, no. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29873597 Umm, yes. Here's a seat-of-the-pants calculation for you. Look at a typical SCUBA tank. As a first approximation, maximum breathing time off a single cylinder is one hour. The PLSS worn on the surface of the Moon is at LEAST the volume and mass of that one tank. And the PLSS has two huge advantages. First, it is essentially a rebreather, not an open-circuit rig such as used by sport divers. Second, it is pure oxygen, not the mixed-gas of a typical diving cylinder. Since our atmosphere is only 20% oxygen, without even including rebreathing the PLSS should be capable of sustaining life for over five hours. (In practice, the O2 tank on the PLSS is considerably smaller. SCUBA is performed under pressure, and for open circuit diving this means that you use more air at increased depths. The PLSS makes up for this and more by also having to include batteries, fans, radio, and of course the 6-7 kilos of cooling water. The longest EVAs were still only about twice the five-hour figure arrived at above.) (Basically, if you do the math in any kind of detail, you find the numbers still work out in Apollo's favor. The thing is quite possible, even with generous engineering margins). The second, this EXTREMELY complicated mission could be pulled off in a high tech rocket and lunar lander that has less computer ability than a modern cell phone?? Would you put your ass into a rocket to the moon that had only the power of your cell phone......? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29873597 Not exactly. NASA had more computer power, and certainly much better "expert systems," (aka a huge staff of actual rocket scientists on call), and they were in constant communication with the rocket. This is basically like saying your computer mouse doesn't have enough RAM to do decent graphics. Nonsense. Your mouse doesn't NEED any RAM. It only needs the cable. And third,,,,I believe that NASA admitted that they DID film a moon landing in a studio just in case the footage could not be beamed back to earth. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29873597 I don't blame them for being apprehensive, I have T-Mobile and still have no service at my house that is reliable.... No. You may be mis-remembering that a speech was rehearsed (and I think it might even have been recorded) by the President in case the first mission was a failure and the crew was lost in space. The live coverage was rather crammed in at the last minute, and was a bit ad-hoc. It just hadn't occurred to anyone that people would care that much about live TV coverage. (And, sadly, by the time of Apollo 13, they were right again). |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 29873597 United States12/18/2012 09:43 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Can I put you in my over,,,or better,,,my Big Green Egg bar-B-Q cooker in that suit,,,and will you volunteer...??? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29873597 Let alone,,,,what proof are they radiation proof....are you willing to go into Chyrnobyl with 1960's technology?? Don't be crazy, and misreprosent history...they were on a surface that would boil water,,in a very flimsy suit...and we are to trust that on a foreign planet......ummmm ok. I dare you to volunteer.....remember,,,,our current astraunauts have NEVER been outside of the earths atmoshphere..... Why do hoaxies make up claims? Is it that the real statements by NASA are too hard to disprove, or is it that they don't understand what it is that is being said and present their own flawed version instead? Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183 Three things, well, there are a ton more, but how could they ever get a rocket into space, Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29873597 The usual way rockets do it. Sufficient thrust/mass ratio. Rockets, in fact, are used because they are one of the few things around with enough power density -- and the kind of power that can be turned into thrust with a high enough efficiency. then put the humans into spacesuits that could never block the solar radiation,,, Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29873597 I think we managed to solve the opacity problem with fabric a long time ago. Or do you think most clothing is transparent to visible light? You may not have said what you meant. However, most of the output of the sun is in the visual spectrum. Very little is in the form of ionizing radiation, and very little of THAT is of a type that would make it through as much as a sheet of paper. then, walk around on a moon in direct sunlight where we are told is hot enough to boil water on? We're told they had suits with tubes of water that cooled them...HOW DID THEY COOL THE WATER?? You need oxygen to, like an air conditioner, cool the air or water. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29873597 Not what is claimed. Part and parcel of the description of the coolant loop is how the water is chilled. And, no, you don't need oxygen to chill anything. Inside your refrigerator is essentially no airflow (aside from convective cells). What is happening on the inside of the shell of your refrigerator is expansion of a working fluid. Same thing -- EXACTLY -- that causes a CO2 cylinder to become cold when you let off gas. Or take a Peltier Junction, which is a solid state electronic device. In both of the above examples, a difference is created; it is colder inside the refrigerator, and hotter outside. In both, yes, that excess heat is then rejected via radiators -- but unlike the misnamed automotive "radiator," these are not primarily convective; they would work in a vacuum as well. In the case of the Apollo suits, the engine leveraged was, basically, the behavior of water in the lunar vacuum. Unlike the closed loop of your refrigerator, it was a wasteful process; water is allowed to boil off, cooling the heat exchanger it is dribbling out of. We are told the moon has no atmosphere, and hence, no oxygen, SOOOO, do those suits look big enough to lug around that much water, or oxygen?? Ummm, no. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29873597 Umm, yes. Here's a seat-of-the-pants calculation for you. Look at a typical SCUBA tank. As a first approximation, maximum breathing time off a single cylinder is one hour. The PLSS worn on the surface of the Moon is at LEAST the volume and mass of that one tank. And the PLSS has two huge advantages. First, it is essentially a rebreather, not an open-circuit rig such as used by sport divers. Second, it is pure oxygen, not the mixed-gas of a typical diving cylinder. Since our atmosphere is only 20% oxygen, without even including rebreathing the PLSS should be capable of sustaining life for over five hours. (In practice, the O2 tank on the PLSS is considerably smaller. SCUBA is performed under pressure, and for open circuit diving this means that you use more air at increased depths. The PLSS makes up for this and more by also having to include batteries, fans, radio, and of course the 6-7 kilos of cooling water. The longest EVAs were still only about twice the five-hour figure arrived at above.) (Basically, if you do the math in any kind of detail, you find the numbers still work out in Apollo's favor. The thing is quite possible, even with generous engineering margins). The second, this EXTREMELY complicated mission could be pulled off in a high tech rocket and lunar lander that has less computer ability than a modern cell phone?? Would you put your ass into a rocket to the moon that had only the power of your cell phone......? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29873597 Not exactly. NASA had more computer power, and certainly much better "expert systems," (aka a huge staff of actual rocket scientists on call), and they were in constant communication with the rocket. This is basically like saying your computer mouse doesn't have enough RAM to do decent graphics. Nonsense. Your mouse doesn't NEED any RAM. It only needs the cable. And third,,,,I believe that NASA admitted that they DID film a moon landing in a studio just in case the footage could not be beamed back to earth. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29873597 I don't blame them for being apprehensive, I have T-Mobile and still have no service at my house that is reliable.... No. You may be mis-remembering that a speech was rehearsed (and I think it might even have been recorded) by the President in case the first mission was a failure and the crew was lost in space. The live coverage was rather crammed in at the last minute, and was a bit ad-hoc. It just hadn't occurred to anyone that people would care that much about live TV coverage. (And, sadly, by the time of Apollo 13, they were right again). that is "oven"......and you are making a TON of assumptions as to why the phony space missions were suddely called off.... |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 29873597 United States12/18/2012 09:44 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Can I put you in my over,,,or better,,,my Big Green Egg bar-B-Q cooker in that suit,,,and will you volunteer...??? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29873597 Let alone,,,,what proof are they radiation proof....are you willing to go into Chyrnobyl with 1960's technology?? Don't be crazy, and misreprosent history...they were on a surface that would boil water,,in a very flimsy suit...and we are to trust that on a foreign planet......ummmm ok. I dare you to volunteer.....remember,,,,our current astraunauts have NEVER been outside of the earths atmoshphere..... Why do hoaxies make up claims? Is it that the real statements by NASA are too hard to disprove, or is it that they don't understand what it is that is being said and present their own flawed version instead? Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183 Three things, well, there are a ton more, but how could they ever get a rocket into space, Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29873597 The usual way rockets do it. Sufficient thrust/mass ratio. Rockets, in fact, are used because they are one of the few things around with enough power density -- and the kind of power that can be turned into thrust with a high enough efficiency. then put the humans into spacesuits that could never block the solar radiation,,, Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29873597 I think we managed to solve the opacity problem with fabric a long time ago. Or do you think most clothing is transparent to visible light? You may not have said what you meant. However, most of the output of the sun is in the visual spectrum. Very little is in the form of ionizing radiation, and very little of THAT is of a type that would make it through as much as a sheet of paper. then, walk around on a moon in direct sunlight where we are told is hot enough to boil water on? We're told they had suits with tubes of water that cooled them...HOW DID THEY COOL THE WATER?? You need oxygen to, like an air conditioner, cool the air or water. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29873597 Not what is claimed. Part and parcel of the description of the coolant loop is how the water is chilled. And, no, you don't need oxygen to chill anything. Inside your refrigerator is essentially no airflow (aside from convective cells). What is happening on the inside of the shell of your refrigerator is expansion of a working fluid. Same thing -- EXACTLY -- that causes a CO2 cylinder to become cold when you let off gas. Or take a Peltier Junction, which is a solid state electronic device. In both of the above examples, a difference is created; it is colder inside the refrigerator, and hotter outside. In both, yes, that excess heat is then rejected via radiators -- but unlike the misnamed automotive "radiator," these are not primarily convective; they would work in a vacuum as well. In the case of the Apollo suits, the engine leveraged was, basically, the behavior of water in the lunar vacuum. Unlike the closed loop of your refrigerator, it was a wasteful process; water is allowed to boil off, cooling the heat exchanger it is dribbling out of. We are told the moon has no atmosphere, and hence, no oxygen, SOOOO, do those suits look big enough to lug around that much water, or oxygen?? Ummm, no. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29873597 Umm, yes. Here's a seat-of-the-pants calculation for you. Look at a typical SCUBA tank. As a first approximation, maximum breathing time off a single cylinder is one hour. The PLSS worn on the surface of the Moon is at LEAST the volume and mass of that one tank. And the PLSS has two huge advantages. First, it is essentially a rebreather, not an open-circuit rig such as used by sport divers. Second, it is pure oxygen, not the mixed-gas of a typical diving cylinder. Since our atmosphere is only 20% oxygen, without even including rebreathing the PLSS should be capable of sustaining life for over five hours. (In practice, the O2 tank on the PLSS is considerably smaller. SCUBA is performed under pressure, and for open circuit diving this means that you use more air at increased depths. The PLSS makes up for this and more by also having to include batteries, fans, radio, and of course the 6-7 kilos of cooling water. The longest EVAs were still only about twice the five-hour figure arrived at above.) (Basically, if you do the math in any kind of detail, you find the numbers still work out in Apollo's favor. The thing is quite possible, even with generous engineering margins). The second, this EXTREMELY complicated mission could be pulled off in a high tech rocket and lunar lander that has less computer ability than a modern cell phone?? Would you put your ass into a rocket to the moon that had only the power of your cell phone......? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29873597 Not exactly. NASA had more computer power, and certainly much better "expert systems," (aka a huge staff of actual rocket scientists on call), and they were in constant communication with the rocket. This is basically like saying your computer mouse doesn't have enough RAM to do decent graphics. Nonsense. Your mouse doesn't NEED any RAM. It only needs the cable. And third,,,,I believe that NASA admitted that they DID film a moon landing in a studio just in case the footage could not be beamed back to earth. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29873597 I don't blame them for being apprehensive, I have T-Mobile and still have no service at my house that is reliable.... No. You may be mis-remembering that a speech was rehearsed (and I think it might even have been recorded) by the President in case the first mission was a failure and the crew was lost in space. The live coverage was rather crammed in at the last minute, and was a bit ad-hoc. It just hadn't occurred to anyone that people would care that much about live TV coverage. (And, sadly, by the time of Apollo 13, they were right again). that is "oven"......and you are making a TON of assumptions as to why the phony space missions were suddely called off.... Why don't you enlighten us all as to this amazing leap in science was suddely called off,,,,,in favor of a "war on drugs", or a "war on cancer"..... Public money better spent?? LOL |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 29873597 United States12/18/2012 09:56 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | And,,,,,NASA did admit that their computing power...NOT COMPUTER,,, had less than a modern cell phone.... Didn't matter what their scientists had in their head,,,,they were dictacted by the engineering in their spacecraft...... Hey stupid,,,you can't re-engineer a spacecraft,,,that had never been in that enviroment....to OPERATE DIFFERENT THAT IT'S BEEN DESIGNED TO DO!!!! Tell your theories to those robots that believe everything they hear...... If you believe the official story,,,all technology was designed to operate how they thought....without any prior knowledge. We had never been outside of our atmoshphere,,,,thus,,,no knowledge as to how humans would react. Supposidly,,the Russians sent their guys up there and were killed by radiation. All of our space shuttle missions were performed in Earth's atmosphere.....NOT in space!! Tell me I'm wrong. All our satelights are in Earth's atmosphere....not in space!!! 99% of people do not realize this,,,which is why they don't know.... |
Weasel_Turbine  User ID: 14143765 United States12/18/2012 10:02 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Can I put you in my oven,,,or better,,,my Big Green Egg bar-B-Q cooker in that suit,,,and will you volunteer...??? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29873597 So you think a combo of convective, conductive, and radiative heating is somehow comparable to radiative alone? Just one question. What kind of crack are you smoking? Let alone,,,,what proof are they radiation proof....are you willing to go into Chyrnobyl with 1960's technology?? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29873597 And you have no idea there are DIFFERENT types of radiation. Don't be crazy, and misreprosent history...they were on a surface that would boil water,,in a very flimsy suit...and we are to trust that on a foreign planet......ummmm ok. I dare you to volunteer.....remember,,,,our current astraunauts have NEVER been outside of the earths atmoshphere..... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29873597 The surface CAN get that hot but not immediately. It takes TIME to heat up. They landed in lunar morning. It wasn't that hot yet. And that is only the SURFACE. Last Edited by LHP598 on 12/18/2012 10:07 PM If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 30229243 Argentina12/18/2012 10:04 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Weasel_Turbine User ID: 14143765 United States12/18/2012 10:06 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | And,,,,,NASA did admit that their computing power...NOT COMPUTER,,, had less than a modern cell phone.... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29873597 Yeah, and? How many megabytes does it take to get to orbit? How many actual calculations was the spacecraft expected to do? If you believe the official story,,,all technology was designed to operate how they thought....without any prior knowledge. We had never been outside of our atmoshphere,,,,thus,,,no knowledge as to how humans would react. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29873597 Except for the multiple probes we sent there beforehand. Engineers aren't as stupid as you think they are. Supposidly,,the Russians sent their guys up there and were killed by radiation. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29873597 Yeah, yeah, supposedly. And of course no proof of this. All of our space shuttle missions were performed in Earth's atmosphere.....NOT in space!! Tell me I'm wrong. All our satelights are in Earth's atmosphere....not in space!!! 99% of people do not realize this,,,which is why they don't know.... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29873597 So you think geostationary orbit (22,000 miles up) is still in the atmosphere? Again, what kind of crack are you smoking? If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 29873597 United States12/18/2012 10:08 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The second, this EXTREMELY complicated mission could be pulled off in a high tech rocket and lunar lander that has less computer ability than a modern cell phone?? Would you put your ass into a rocket to the moon that had only the power of your cell phone......? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29873597 Not exactly. NASA had more computer power, and certainly much better "expert systems," (aka a huge staff of actual rocket scientists on call), and they were in constant communication with the rocket. This is basically like saying your computer mouse doesn't have enough RAM to do decent graphics. Nonsense. Your mouse doesn't NEED any RAM. It only needs the cable. Ummmmmmm, no....your car in the 60's couldn't even tell you how far to empty you were.....BUT,,,NASA says now OUR cell phones have more computing power than the lunar landing,,,,and in an emergency,,with only seconds to spare,,,,a few nerds in Huston can figure out the problem when they are Hundreds of THOUSANDS OF MILES FROM EARTH??!!! Do you even KINDA believe the bullshit you a SHILLING!!?? Don't worry,,most of the sheep believe this story....and that is your goal.. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 29873597 United States12/18/2012 10:10 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | And,,,,,NASA did admit that their computing power...NOT COMPUTER,,, had less than a modern cell phone.... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29873597 Yeah, and? How many megabytes does it take to get to orbit? How many actual calculations was the spacecraft expected to do? If you believe the official story,,,all technology was designed to operate how they thought....without any prior knowledge. We had never been outside of our atmoshphere,,,,thus,,,no knowledge as to how humans would react. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29873597 Except for the multiple probes we sent there beforehand. Engineers aren't as stupid as you think they are. Supposidly,,the Russians sent their guys up there and were killed by radiation. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29873597 Yeah, yeah, supposedly. And of course no proof of this. All of our space shuttle missions were performed in Earth's atmosphere.....NOT in space!! Tell me I'm wrong. All our satelights are in Earth's atmosphere....not in space!!! 99% of people do not realize this,,,which is why they don't know.... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29873597 So you think geostationary orbit (22,000 miles up) is still in the atmosphere? Again, what kind of crack are you smoking? Is that outside of the Van Allen Belt...what are you smoking?? |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 29873597 United States12/18/2012 10:12 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | And,,,,,NASA did admit that their computing power...NOT COMPUTER,,, had less than a modern cell phone.... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29873597 Yeah, and? How many megabytes does it take to get to orbit? How many actual calculations was the spacecraft expected to do? If you believe the official story,,,all technology was designed to operate how they thought....without any prior knowledge. We had never been outside of our atmoshphere,,,,thus,,,no knowledge as to how humans would react. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29873597 Except for the multiple probes we sent there beforehand. Engineers aren't as stupid as you think they are. Supposidly,,the Russians sent their guys up there and were killed by radiation. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29873597 Yeah, yeah, supposedly. And of course no proof of this. All of our space shuttle missions were performed in Earth's atmosphere.....NOT in space!! Tell me I'm wrong. All our satelights are in Earth's atmosphere....not in space!!! 99% of people do not realize this,,,which is why they don't know.... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29873597 So you think geostationary orbit (22,000 miles up) is still in the atmosphere? Again, what kind of crack are you smoking? Is that outside of the Van Allen Belt...what are you smoking?? That's the whole point!!! or did you miss it?? |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 29873597 United States12/18/2012 10:14 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The second, this EXTREMELY complicated mission could be pulled off in a high tech rocket and lunar lander that has less computer ability than a modern cell phone?? Would you put your ass into a rocket to the moon that had only the power of your cell phone......? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29873597 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29873597 Not exactly. NASA had more computer power, and certainly much better "expert systems," (aka a huge staff of actual rocket scientists on call), and they were in constant communication with the rocket. This is basically like saying your computer mouse doesn't have enough RAM to do decent graphics. Nonsense. Your mouse doesn't NEED any RAM. It only needs the cable. Ummmmmmm, no....your car in the 60's couldn't even tell you how far to empty you were.....BUT,,,NASA says now OUR cell phones have more computing power than the lunar landing,,,,and in an emergency,,with only seconds to spare,,,,a few nerds in Huston can figure out the problem when they are Hundreds of THOUSANDS OF MILES FROM EARTH??!!! Do you even KINDA believe the bullshit you a SHILLING!!?? Don't worry,,most of the sheep believe this story....and that is your goal.. Ummmmmmm, no....your car in the 60's couldn't even tell you how far to empty you were.....BUT,,,NASA says now OUR cell phones have more computing power than the lunar landing,,,,and in an emergency,,with only seconds to spare,,,,a few nerds in Huston can figure out the problem when they are Hundreds of THOUSANDS OF MILES FROM EARTH??!!! Do you even KINDA believe the bullshit you a SHILLING!!?? Don't worry,,most of the sheep believe this story....and that is your goal.. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 30229243 Argentina12/18/2012 10:19 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Still NO HUMANS out of Earth orbit. Because they CANT. Or else, they WOULD be, obviously. There is no other reason why they dont go. The Russians still say that they cant because of the Van Allens belt and radiation. They tested with dogs and monkeys that died. NO country anywhere have any person, nor have ever had a person, outside of Earth orbit. That is also why NASA never got anyone back, not that they got there in the first place. And its nothing to do with money, they blast of billions of dollars on other silly projects all the time. They just crashed two satellites into the moon. And just a year or two back, they sent a bomb to the moon on another satellite. They sent rovers and advanced robotics several times all the way to Mars, and to Venus, etc. They got Hubble flying around, other deep space probes. Still no living beings, only the technological stuff. Because, no living being as of yet CAN. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 25423559  Canada12/18/2012 10:20 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Weasel_Turbine User ID: 14143765 United States12/18/2012 10:20 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | And,,,,,NASA did admit that their computing power...NOT COMPUTER,,, had less than a modern cell phone.... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29873597 Yeah, and? How many megabytes does it take to get to orbit? How many actual calculations was the spacecraft expected to do? If you believe the official story,,,all technology was designed to operate how they thought....without any prior knowledge. We had never been outside of our atmoshphere,,,,thus,,,no knowledge as to how humans would react. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29873597 Except for the multiple probes we sent there beforehand. Engineers aren't as stupid as you think they are. Supposidly,,the Russians sent their guys up there and were killed by radiation. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29873597 Yeah, yeah, supposedly. And of course no proof of this. All of our space shuttle missions were performed in Earth's atmosphere.....NOT in space!! Tell me I'm wrong. All our satelights are in Earth's atmosphere....not in space!!! 99% of people do not realize this,,,which is why they don't know.... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29873597 So you think geostationary orbit (22,000 miles up) is still in the atmosphere? Again, what kind of crack are you smoking? Is that outside of the Van Allen Belt...what are you smoking?? Right in the middle. You realize the Van Allen belts are NOT part of the atmosphere right? You want further out? How about STEREO? [link to www.nasa.gov] One satellite ahead in orbit, one behind, both far outside the Van Allen Belts and able to see parts of the Sun not visible from here. And definitely not smoking anything. Last Edited by LHP598 on 12/18/2012 10:28 PM If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law |
| Weasel_Turbine User ID: 14143765 United States12/18/2012 10:21 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The second, this EXTREMELY complicated mission could be pulled off in a high tech rocket and lunar lander that has less computer ability than a modern cell phone?? Would you put your ass into a rocket to the moon that had only the power of your cell phone......? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29873597 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29873597 Not exactly. NASA had more computer power, and certainly much better "expert systems," (aka a huge staff of actual rocket scientists on call), and they were in constant communication with the rocket. This is basically like saying your computer mouse doesn't have enough RAM to do decent graphics. Nonsense. Your mouse doesn't NEED any RAM. It only needs the cable. Ummmmmmm, no....your car in the 60's couldn't even tell you how far to empty you were.....BUT,,,NASA says now OUR cell phones have more computing power than the lunar landing,,,,and in an emergency,,with only seconds to spare,,,,a few nerds in Huston can figure out the problem when they are Hundreds of THOUSANDS OF MILES FROM EARTH??!!! Do you even KINDA believe the bullshit you a SHILLING!!?? Don't worry,,most of the sheep believe this story....and that is your goal.. Ummmmmmm, no....your car in the 60's couldn't even tell you how far to empty you were.....BUT,,,NASA says now OUR cell phones have more computing power than the lunar landing,,,,and in an emergency,,with only seconds to spare,,,,a few nerds in Huston can figure out the problem when they are Hundreds of THOUSANDS OF MILES FROM EARTH??!!! Do you even KINDA believe the bullshit you a SHILLING!!?? Don't worry,,most of the sheep believe this story....and that is your goal.. You have no idea how ANYTHING relating to orbital mechanics is worked out do you? If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law |
| Weasel_Turbine User ID: 14143765 United States12/18/2012 10:24 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Still NO HUMANS out of Earth orbit. Because they CANT. Or else, they WOULD be, obviously. There is no other reason why they dont go. The Russians still say that they cant because of the Van Allens belt and radiation. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 30229243 Prove they say that. Prove it. Then explain why Zond 5 had no problems. That is also why NASA never got anyone back, not that they got there in the first place. And its nothing to do with money, they blast of billions of dollars on other silly projects all the time. They just crashed two satellites into the moon. And just a year or two back, they sent a bomb to the moon on another satellite. They sent rovers and advanced robotics several times all the way to Mars, and to Venus, etc. They got Hubble flying around, other deep space probes. Still no living beings, only the technological stuff. Because, no living being as of yet CAN. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 30229243 Lots of opinion, no proof. NASA's funding is controlled by Congress. They aren't just given a chunk of money and allowed to spend it however they choose. Every part is designated to individual programs. Congressmen have their own favorite programs and have trouble supporting anything that has a payoff outside their next reelection. Last Edited by LHP598 on 12/18/2012 10:25 PM If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 30229243 Argentina12/18/2012 10:29 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | More examples the space shuttle missions of "today" are hoaxed. SAME FREAKIN STUDIO SHOT SCENE - from year to year! The vegetations doesnt change. Nor does the space shuttles for that matter. I already posted 10 years of evidence in a past post, that I will include again, but first the vegetation. Also, the space shuttle and rocket etc is the same as well again and again. 2001, bushes and trees etc, notice them. [link to www.septclues.com] 2002: [link to www.septclues.com] 2007: [link to www.septclues.com] 2009+2011: [link to www.septclues.com] Obviously the above examples show a much shorter time span than the alleged 10 years and several different missions. Even the camera is placed in the same spot and same angle time after time LOL. And here, 10 years and many different missions, with closeup of "individual" details of exhaust etc, showing them to be IDENTICAL, with SAME DETAILS, again something IMPOSSIBLE if they really were different missions and different shuttles at different times: [link to www.septclues.com] Even the flames are the same, the fumes the same, even same silly 070 time stamp on each. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 30229243 Argentina12/18/2012 10:42 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Still NO HUMANS out of Earth orbit. Because they CANT. Or else, they WOULD be, obviously. There is no other reason why they dont go. The Russians still say that they cant because of the Van Allens belt and radiation. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 30229243 Prove they say that. Prove it. Then explain why Zond 5 had no problems. That is also why NASA never got anyone back, not that they got there in the first place. And its nothing to do with money, they blast of billions of dollars on other silly projects all the time. They just crashed two satellites into the moon. And just a year or two back, they sent a bomb to the moon on another satellite. They sent rovers and advanced robotics several times all the way to Mars, and to Venus, etc. They got Hubble flying around, other deep space probes. Still no living beings, only the technological stuff. Because, no living being as of yet CAN. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 30229243 Lots of opinion, no proof. NASA's funding is controlled by Congress. They aren't just given a chunk of money and allowed to spend it however they choose. Every part is designated to individual programs. Congressmen have their own favorite programs and have trouble supporting anything that has a payoff outside their next reelection. NASA IS NOT THE ONLY SPACE EXPLORATION PROGRAM IN THE WORLD! You must be amazingly ignorant if you think NASA could do it 40 years ago but no one else can do it today nor ever managed to. Nor that they even managed to do it AGAIN themselves! LOL. And in that piece of junk they used back then, cardboard and duct tape LOL. And, if you are really researching this, you should already know about the dead animals, and russians saying they cant go out because of the radiation etc. [link to www.ufos-aliens.co.uk] [link to billkaysing.com] |
| Weasel_Turbine User ID: 14143765 United States12/18/2012 11:00 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Still NO HUMANS out of Earth orbit. Because they CANT. Or else, they WOULD be, obviously. There is no other reason why they dont go. The Russians still say that they cant because of the Van Allens belt and radiation. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 30229243 Prove they say that. Prove it. Then explain why Zond 5 had no problems. That is also why NASA never got anyone back, not that they got there in the first place. And its nothing to do with money, they blast of billions of dollars on other silly projects all the time. They just crashed two satellites into the moon. And just a year or two back, they sent a bomb to the moon on another satellite. They sent rovers and advanced robotics several times all the way to Mars, and to Venus, etc. They got Hubble flying around, other deep space probes. Still no living beings, only the technological stuff. Because, no living being as of yet CAN. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 30229243 Lots of opinion, no proof. NASA's funding is controlled by Congress. They aren't just given a chunk of money and allowed to spend it however they choose. Every part is designated to individual programs. Congressmen have their own favorite programs and have trouble supporting anything that has a payoff outside their next reelection. NASA IS NOT THE ONLY SPACE EXPLORATION PROGRAM IN THE WORLD! You must be amazingly ignorant if you think NASA could do it 40 years ago but no one else can do it today nor ever managed to. Nor that they even managed to do it AGAIN themselves! LOL. Russia tried to and had an active program until 1974 but couldn't get their heavy lifting booster to not explode. No other program has yet had the infrastructure capable. China will soon. you must be amazingly ignorant if you think any other country besides Russia had a program capable of making it to the Moon since then. And in that piece of junk they used back then, cardboard and duct tape LOL. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 30229243 thanks for showing your ignorance between structure and insulative covering. And, if you are really researching this, you should already know about the dead animals, and russians saying they cant go out because of the radiation etc. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 30229243 If the Russians supposedly said they couldn't go, why did they publically congratulate the US for getting there? Why did they have an active program trying to get there until 1974? Of course, predictably, you didn't provide any reference for them supposedly saying they couldn't go because of radiation. First they talk about the POSSIBILITY of a solar particle event. Lots of scare tactics but no mention of the FACT that no SPEs happened during Apollo that were directed toward Earth. Followed by scare tactics for the Van Allen belts and forgetting the FACT that they went AROUND the majority of the belts through the thinnest outer layers. And of course no mention that some Gemini missions also spent time in the belts. Misdirection about the shielding on the spacecraft. Claims that there wasn't enough aluminum shielding and ignoring the other materials used (polyethylene). [link to www.clavius.org] Ignorant claim that they could just tell people the radiation was ok when multiple companies and countries use the same figures to build their satellites that travel through and work in the belts. If the figures were wrong then people would find out. Any particular argument you wanted to push here or are you just fond of the "throw shit at the wall and see if it sticks" tactic? Last Edited by LHP598 on 12/18/2012 11:01 PM If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law |
| Halcyon Dayz, FCD User ID: 25358447  Netherlands12/19/2012 01:15 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Well if you REALLY are so ignorant you think ONE single magical wonder bolt would keep a massive space shuttle connected to a rocket, you are beyond salvation I fear. Twentieth Century engineers have done far more remarkable things. This is yet another "I don't know anything about the subject but I will make pertinent claims about it without any evidence anyway" sorry excuse of an argument you keep throwing at the wall. You CAN NOT USE CLAIMS AS EVIDENCE! Only FACTS can be used as evidence. So IF you want to use your wild-ass assumption as evidence first demonstrate that it IS a fact. (Not yet another ass-pull.) Honestly, can you CONSIDER the MASSIVE amounts of energy and direct FORCE put upon this, the THRUST, what is this bolt made of? KRYPTONITE? Quoting: Argetinian Coward 30229243 Why don't you know? What more proof do we need to know that YOU ARE JUST GUESSING. A friend of mine, who works with satellite technology for the army, already told me about this and how it is physically impossible for the space shuttle to be connected that way along with the trust and g-forces of the rocket itself, and I think he is better at calculating such than myself. Quoting: Argentinian Coward 30229243 So you are just mindlessly regurgitating somebody else's claim? What if the Pope proclaims tomorrow that the world is flat? Would that make the-world-is-flat a fact? What's his evidence? But, do feel free to provide me some calculations showing that this could work! Quoting: Argentinian Coward 30229243 How typical. Like every other hoaxie ever you're to bloody lazy (and to bloody dumb) to do your own homework. YOU have accused a (very large) number of people of criminal conduct. YOU very assuredly have the burden of proof. Still NO HUMANS out of Earth orbit. Because they CANT. Or else, they WOULD be, obviously. There is no other reason why they dont go. Quoting: Argentinian Coward 30229243 And YET ANOTHER unevidenced ASSumption. We could nuke a canal from the Mediterranean to the Qattara Depression and make the desert flower, but WE WON'T. We could eradicate most communal diseases, but WE WON'T. We CAN feed every person in the world, but WE DON'T. There's an awful lot of things we could do if we were willing to invest the necessary resources. But we don't. Economics 101: resources are finite, demand exceeds supply. Hence, resources must be allotted by methods like the open market and political decisions. Great things can only be accomplished with great power, great wealth, and great will.  Reaching for the sky makes you taller. Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans. |
| nomuse (not logged in) User ID: 2380183 United States12/19/2012 02:36 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Well if you REALLY are so ignorant you think ONE single magical wonder bolt would keep a massive space shuttle connected to a rocket, you are beyond salvation I fear. Honestly, can you CONSIDER the MASSIVE amounts of energy and direct FORCE put upon this, the THRUST, what is this bolt made of? KRYPTONITE? [link to www.septclues.com] [link to www.septclues.com] [link to www.septclues.com] How the HELL could those two beams with ONE single bolt hold that huge many tons large non-aerodynamically designed shuttle in place? Imagine the G-Forces and all, how does it keep in place? Imagine what sort of massive aerodynamic lift forces, at Mach+ speeds, must be withstood by the anchoring of the shuttle on its fuel tank. The pull forces exerted on that single, lone bolt must be phenomenal; to make matters worse, not only do we have one single bolt 'securing' the front end of the Shuttle - as well as the lives of these astronaughts and the success of all these shuttle launches, it is also a moving part ! (a fact which, notoriously, makes it even more vulnerable to disfunction/breakage - titanium or not titanium or KRYPTONITE brought in by Superman himself) Don't hand-wave. Calculate. Don't forget to include the SSME, which are also lifting the Orbiter component at the time. A friend of mine, who works with satellite technology for the army, already told me about this and how it is physically impossible for the space shuttle to be connected that way along with the trust and g-forces of the rocket itself, and I think he is better at calculating such than myself. But, do feel free to provide me some calculations showing that this could work! Want a zeroth-order approximation? Here goes. Maximum takeoff mass of Orbiter; 109,000 kg. Mass of External Tank, full; 760,000 kg. Mass of each SRB at launch; 590,000 kg. Thrust of SRB's, sea-level liftoff; 12.5 MN ea. 12,500,000 + 12,500,000 / 109,000 + 760,000 + 590,000 + 590,000 = 12.2 m/s^2 top potential thrust. Sanity check; - 9.8 m/s^2 = 2.4 m/s^2 upward acceleration within the first second of launch (the mass ratio improves quickly). Ignoring both air resistance and the contribution of the SSME (that is, assuming they more-or-less cancel at this stage), the sheer force between Orbiter and stack is 109,000 x 12.2 or 1.3 MN. Mild steel has a sheer strength of 250 MPa. Dividing by the force, we solve for a cross-sectional area of 52 cm^2. If it were a single bolt made of mild steel, it would have a radius of 4 cm. Your source is of course wrong about there being a single bolt. If I might quote: ...it (the ET) is connected to the orbiter at one forward attachment bipod and two aft bipods. Assuming 150% margin two 1 1/2" bolts of mild steel would suffice. Since even AS14 is rated at SEVEN HUNDRED MPa, achieving a significant margin here is far from difficult. |
| nomuse (not logged in) User ID: 2380183 United States12/19/2012 02:42 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 24508494 United States01/08/2013 10:38 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The BURDEN OF PROOF remains and will always remain with NASA who has made such outrageous claims. I rebut NASA claims and I do not have to furnish any proof to do so. I stay with the "not enough fuel" argument, which the Saturn-V was near out of by 118 miles. |
| nomuse (not logged in) User ID: 2380183 United States01/09/2013 01:36 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | And,,,,,NASA did admit that their computing power...NOT COMPUTER,,, had less than a modern cell phone.... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29873597 Didn't matter what their scientists had in their head,,,,they were dictacted by the engineering in their spacecraft...... Hey stupid,,,you can't re-engineer a spacecraft,,,that had never been in that enviroment....to OPERATE DIFFERENT THAT IT'S BEEN DESIGNED TO DO!!!! Tell your theories to those robots that believe everything they hear...... If you believe the official story,,,all technology was designed to operate how they thought....without any prior knowledge. We had never been outside of our atmoshphere,,,,thus,,,no knowledge as to how humans would react. Supposidly,,the Russians sent their guys up there and were killed by radiation. All of our space shuttle missions were performed in Earth's atmosphere.....NOT in space!! Tell me I'm wrong. All our satelights are in Earth's atmosphere....not in space!!! 99% of people do not realize this,,,which is why they don't know.... What, Gemini and Mercury didn't exist either? You think the first time a rocket actually went into space was Apollo bloody eleven? And for that matter, what is the problem with probes? Do you have to stick your head in the oven to know what temperature it is inside? Do you have to visit the Moon to know if the sun is shining at Mare Imbrium? And, to put the capper on this foolishness, your final argument is that it is impossible to do anything for the first time because no-one has ever done it before. Someone alert Tenzig Norgay. Or Jesse Owens. Or skip all that and tell Zeno his paradox has been improved! |
| nomuse (not logged in) User ID: 2380183 United States01/09/2013 01:45 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Still NO HUMANS out of Earth orbit. Because they CANT. Or else, they WOULD be, obviously. There is no other reason why they dont go. The Russians still say that they cant because of the Van Allens belt and radiation. They tested with dogs and monkeys that died. NO country anywhere have any person, nor have ever had a person, outside of Earth orbit. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 30229243 That is also why NASA never got anyone back, not that they got there in the first place. And its nothing to do with money, they blast of billions of dollars on other silly projects all the time. They just crashed two satellites into the moon. And just a year or two back, they sent a bomb to the moon on another satellite. They sent rovers and advanced robotics several times all the way to Mars, and to Venus, etc. They got Hubble flying around, other deep space probes. Still no living beings, only the technological stuff. Because, no living being as of yet CAN. Liar. No animal has ever died due to "space." Laika (the first Russian dog) died of suffocation -- because her capsule had never been designed to bring her back alive (the Soviets were still working on that part!) Later Russian dogs not only survived, but thrived; there are grand-grand-grand-pups of some of those dogs running around Washington today. Same with Russian Tortoises. NASA also killed a few animals on their first attempts. Again, nothing to do with space being MYSTERIOUS and deadly. Due to space travel being, well, DANGEROUS. These were the same days, I remind you, when many rockets didn't even make it into space, but blew up on the pad. Later primates survived -- at least one of them no doubt swearing he'd never go up in one of those things again! (It wasn't so much the unexpected G-force -- again, nothing about mysterious space, more about getting a rocket to work right -- as the fact that his seat kept shocking him!) The Soviets publicly stated they believed the Apollo missions had done exactly as described. Later they joined America in orbit with link-ups, then started their own space station, then became the de facto lift operators for almost everyone (Except for the Chinese, who insisted on building their own man-rated rocket. And let's not forget Ariane, or the Japanese lander projects, or....) |
| Halcyon Dayz, FCD User ID: 31033756 Netherlands01/09/2013 12:36 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The BURDEN OF PROOF remains and will always remain with NASA who has made such outrageous claims. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24508494 So you excused your self from rational debate. Tens of millions of rational knowledgeable people find the evidence convincing and (more than) sufficient. And then some ignorant loudmouth shows up who hasn't even looked at the evidence making vile slanderous accusations. If YOU deny history YOU have the burden of proof. If YOU accuse people of wrong-doing YOU have the burden of proof. If YOU want to be considered an rational adult YOU have the burden of proof. I rebut NASA claims and I do not have to furnish any proof to do so. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24508494 I refute your claims that you are not a murder, child molester, and jaywalker and I do not have to furnish any proof to do so. See how that sounds? Like a petulant child. I stay with the "not enough fuel" argument, which the Saturn-V was near out of by 118 miles. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24508494 And that's why people laugh at your face. YOU not understanding something says NOTHING about that something. Reaching for the sky makes you taller. Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 24508494 United States01/11/2013 08:30 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The BURDEN OF PROOF remains and will always remain with NASA who has made such outrageous claims. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24508494 So you excused your self from rational debate. Tens of millions of rational knowledgeable people find the evidence convincing and (more than) sufficient. And then some ignorant loudmouth shows up who hasn't even looked at the evidence making vile slanderous accusations. If YOU deny history YOU have the burden of proof. If YOU accuse people of wrong-doing YOU have the burden of proof. If YOU want to be considered an rational adult YOU have the burden of proof. I rebut NASA claims and I do not have to furnish any proof to do so. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24508494 I refute your claims that you are not a murder, child molester, and jaywalker and I do not have to furnish any proof to do so. See how that sounds? Like a petulant child. I stay with the "not enough fuel" argument, which the Saturn-V was near out of by 118 miles. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24508494 And that's why people laugh at your face. YOU not understanding something says NOTHING about that something. How does one prove a negative? Here's NASA's LEM technology as of 2011, in which they can barely stabilize the craft, even with a tether: [link to www.foxnews.com] |
| Halcyon Dayz, FCD User ID: 31033756 Netherlands01/11/2013 10:51 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The BURDEN OF PROOF remains and will always remain with NASA who has made such outrageous claims. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24508494 So you excused your self from rational debate. How does one prove a negative? Apollo was hoaxed is a positive claim. You proof it by providing the evidence that shows the what, the how, and the who. Here's NASA's LEM technology as of 2011, in which they can barely stabilize the craft, even with a tether: Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24508494 [link to www.foxnews.com] Morpheus != Apollo LM. Whole new spacecraft which is still under development. One obvious difference is the lack of a human pilot. If stuff always worked straight from the drawing board why even bother with prototypes. If you don't manage to crash and burn one you're not pushing the envelope. Anyhoo, in case you haven't noticed NASA hasn't exactly been blazing any trails lately. But VTOL rockets are a well established tech. [link to www.youtube.com] Darryl Cunningham Investigates The Moon Hoax [link to darryl-cunningham.blogspot.com] Moon Base Clavius, for all your debunking needs [link to www.xmission.com] Reaching for the sky makes you taller. Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans. |
