They STILL can't land on the moon....

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10352-lunar-lander-challenge-ends-with-a-crash.html


Armadillo Aerospace's third attempt to win the Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge ended with a crash, dashing its hopes of winning the $350,000 prize.

The team's rocket had 2.5 hours to lift off at one launch pad and hover for 90 seconds at an altitude of 50 metres as it moved to a second launch pad 100 metres away, then do the same thing in reverse.

The rocket, called Pixel, landed with only minor damage after the first leg of the trip. But roughly 2 seconds into its return flight, it started to veer off course, prompting an engine shutdown. Pixel landed on its side and crashed near the launch pad.

It had tried for the prize twice before but had landing problems both times after the first flight segment. On the first attempt on Friday, it landed too hard, snapping its legs off and frying some wiring. After team members made some overnight repairs, they made a second try on Saturday morning, but Pixel tipped over after landing.

On Saturday afternoon, they tried again. As it was landing from the first flight segment, one of Pixel's four legs was damaged. So before its return trip, technicians propped up the leg.
Quick fix

But the quick fix did not work and the leg fell off. Pixel then tipped a little in flight, so its engines automatically shut down and it fell back to Earth.

The crash started a small fire. When firefighters put it out, the surrounding sand got wet and froze to the rocket's chilled oxygen tank. As a result, Pixel will probably become scrap parts for Armadillo. "It's probably not going to fly again," says Armadillo team leader John Carmack, creator of the video game Doom.

Armadillo, based in Mesquite, Texas, US, was vying for the $350,000 first prize in the first year of the Lunar Lander Challenge, one of NASA's Centennial Challenges to spark technological advances. The challenge is meant to develop rockets that can take off and land vertically on the Moon.

Only assholes would believe anything about that space program shit anymore.
Frauds, liars and phonies, the lot of them. I now have more respect for Benny Hinn than I do Neil Armstrong or any of the rest of them. At least he didn't pretend to go to the moon.

You know why I havnt argued with you about this?

because you have some valid scientific reasoning in regards to it.

and as much as I do agree with bob on how impossible it has to be to keep something like this a secret, something just isnt right either when you think about the technology we had in 1969 and why we dont have tons of projects on the moon.

Im not saying I agree with you. Im saying you put up a good argument for it and I cant debate against the things you are saying with good sound logic.

youve made made good points and now I am questioning the whole thing. and one thing that made me question it more was I dont recall the astronauts being attached to the space ship when they so called landed. were they? and if not, how was that possible when they cant do that now when walking outside the space station?

Chrissy8 wrote:You know why I havnt argued with you about this?

because you have some valid scientific reasoning in regards to it.

and as much as I do agree with bob on how impossible it has to be to keep something like this a secret, something just isnt right either when you think about the technology we had in 1969 and why we dont have tons of projects on the moon.

Im not saying I agree with you. Im saying you put up a good argument for it and I cant debate against the things you are saying with good sound logic.

youve made made good points and now I am questioning the whole thing. and one thing that made me question it more was I dont recall the astronauts being attached to the space ship when they so called landed. were they? and if not, how was that possible when they cant do that now when walking outside the space station?

That is because it is impossible to prove a negative.

here's A lander crash....the thing just didn't work....

Not saying that the men that tested them were not brave.

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Chrissy8 wrote:You know why I havnt argued with you about this?

because you have some valid scientific reasoning in regards to it.

and as much as I do agree with bob on how impossible it has to be to keep something like this a secret, something just isnt right either when you think about the technology we had in 1969 and why we dont have tons of projects on the moon.

Im not saying I agree with you. Im saying you put up a good argument for it and I cant debate against the things you are saying with good sound logic.

youve made made good points and now I am questioning the whole thing. and one thing that made me question it more was I dont recall the astronauts being attached to the space ship when they so called landed. were they? and if not, how was that possible when they cant do that now when walking outside the space station?

That is because it is impossible to prove a negative.

What negative ?....establish your point don't just throw out BS and try to sound all smug in some assumption.

Chrissy8 wrote: I dont recall the astronauts being attached to the space ship when they so called landed. were they? and if not, how was that possible when they cant do that now when walking outside the space station?

The space station does not have sufficient mass for GRAVITY to keep astronauts at the station. That is why they tether to the space station.

The moon has enough mass for GRAVITY to keep them on the moon.

Of course, Teo probably believes that there is no space station either. I'm glad that I don't go through life with the doubt and mistrust of my fellow man. I have enough common sense to keep from being duped or taken advantage of, but not enough distrust to go through life constantly looking for the boogeyman over my shoulder.

Yomama wrote:

Chrissy8 wrote: I dont recall the astronauts being attached to the space ship when they so called landed. were they? and if not, how was that possible when they cant do that now when walking outside the space station?

The space station does not have sufficient mass for GRAVITY to keep astronauts at the station. That is why they tether to the space station.

The moon has enough mass for GRAVITY to keep them on the moon.

Of course, Teo probably believes that there is no space station either. I'm glad that I don't go through life with the doubt and mistrust of my fellow man. I have enough common sense to keep from being duped or taken advantage of, but not enough to go through life constantly looking for the boogeyman over my shoulder.

I am not one that likes to be duped. Ever since that whole Santa Claus debacle earlier in my life I have sworn eternal vigilance against all who would attempt to deceive me !

TEOTWAWKI wrote:I am not one that likes to be duped. Ever since that whole Santa Claus debacle earlier in my life I have sworn eternal vigilance against all who would attempt to deceive me !

What was that movie that Mel Gibson starred in about Conspiracies? He had a thousand of them and one of them was real. That's how I feel about Teo. All of the conspiracies can't be true, but chances are that one is real... we just don't know which one.

The moon shot... I don't think it was faked.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:
What negative ?....establish your point don't just throw out BS and try to sound all smug in some assumption.

Me throwing out BS and sounding smug? Teo, unfortunately that fits you perfectly. You are the one throwing out BS in the form of your opinions. You have not supplied us with one bit of concrete evidence that the moon landing was faked. That is the negative that cannot be proven.

Here is a really good site Teo.

http://www.clavius.org/index.html

Courts allow video EVIDENCE to prove their case. When the ship left the moon where was the billowing red smoke that type of propelant makes ? I am on my blackberry so I will expound later.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Courts allow video EVIDENCE to prove their case. When the ship left the moon where was the billowing red smoke that type of propelant makes ? I am on my blackberry so I will expound later.

OK, I will await your response.

http://austhink.com/reason/tutorials/Materials/apollomoonlandings.pdf

Chrissy8 wrote:now I am questioning the whole thing. and one thing that made me question it more was I dont recall the astronauts being attached to the space ship when they so called landed. were they? and if not, how was that possible when they cant do that now when walking outside the space station?

The moon has gravity, not as much as earth but enough to prevent things from floating away. There is no gravity at the space station, etc.

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Courts allow video EVIDENCE to prove their case. When the ship left the moon where was the billowing red smoke that type of propelant makes ? I am on my blackberry so I will expound later.

OK, I will await your response.

http://austhink.com/reason/tutorials/Materials/apollomoonlandings.pdf

Okay I read the PDF you supplied and it actually gave me more ammo. Like the film in the camera. With even low amounts of radiation FILM FOGS. This film didn't. When they did the Space Station IMAX they brought the film up in special lead lined boxes and the cameras were likewise protected throughout the filming. Emulsion is radiation sensitive AND light sensitive. IF THE FILM DIDN'T FOG THE LANDINGS A DOG.
Remember I only have to prove one hoax component to blow the whole thing out of space.

There is no Santa Claus?

2seaoat wrote:There is no Santa Claus?

Nobody walks on water or parts seas either..

Lurch wrote:

2seaoat wrote:There is no Santa Claus?

Nobody walks on water or parts seas either..

Yeah that's a future conspiracy subject. I been working on that one since Santa Claus got busted.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:
Okay I read the PDF you supplied and it actually gave me more ammo. Like the film in the camera. With even low amounts of radiation FILM FOGS. This film didn't. When they did the Space Station IMAX they brought the film up in special lead lined boxes and the cameras were likewise protected throughout the filming. Emulsion is radiation sensitive AND light sensitive. IF THE FILM DIDN'T FOG THE LANDINGS A DOG.
Remember I only have to prove one hoax component to blow the whole thing out of space.

Further, we find that the conspiracists have presented the evidence very selectively. The phenomenon of missing or washed-out fiducials is actually very common, and most often occurs in ways that suggest the fiducials are not obscured by entire objects pasted over them.

Fig. 7 - Better typical examples of fiducial washout. Top left: An LM strut joint. Top right: A highlight on the LM's high-gain S-band antenna. Bottom left: The white stripes on the United States flag. Bottom right: A highlight on the LRV fender. (Top left: NASA, detail of AS14-66-9245. Top right: NASA, detail of AS15-85-11362. Bottom left: NASA, detail of AS15-88-11863. Bottom right: NASA, detail of AS17-136-20760)

The conspiracists don't show you these photos and the many hundreds like them because then they'd have to explain why someone would need to cut and paste just the white stripes on the flag, or just the fitting at the end of a strut. That makes the cut-and-paste argument seem absurd -- which it is, when seen in the light of all the evidence.

Bennett and Percy (op. cit., p. 68) admit that "these partially hidden reticles [i.e., fiducials] may be the result of over exposure." But they don't pursue that hypothesis any further, and surely don't admit as such in their video What Happened on the Moon?. And on page 67 of the book they show the photo from Fig. 5 and identify the washed-out fiducial with the label "Whistle-Blowing". Which is it: an natural photographic phenomenon, or a whistle-blow? In fact, the authors attribute this claim to Ralph Rene, who is not a photographer. So even though David Percy, who is a photographer, correctly identifies the source of the washout, that doesn't prevent him from spreading a little misinformation in order to help out his whistle-blower theory.

http://www.clavius.org/photoret.html

Sorry but I do not see the additional ammo that you refer to. My son who is also a photographer by trade read this and agrees with the finding of Clavius.com.

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:
Okay I read the PDF you supplied and it actually gave me more ammo. Like the film in the camera. With even low amounts of radiation FILM FOGS. This film didn't. When they did the Space Station IMAX they brought the film up in special lead lined boxes and the cameras were likewise protected throughout the filming. Emulsion is radiation sensitive AND light sensitive. IF THE FILM DIDN'T FOG THE LANDINGS A DOG.
Remember I only have to prove one hoax component to blow the whole thing out of space.

Further, we find that the conspiracists have presented the evidence very selectively. The phenomenon of missing or washed-out fiducials is actually very common, and most often occurs in ways that suggest the fiducials are not obscured by entire objects pasted over them.

Fig. 7 - Better typical examples of fiducial washout. Top left: An LM strut joint. Top right: A highlight on the LM's high-gain S-band antenna. Bottom left: The white stripes on the United States flag. Bottom right: A highlight on the LRV fender. (Top left: NASA, detail of AS14-66-9245. Top right: NASA, detail of AS15-85-11362. Bottom left: NASA, detail of AS15-88-11863. Bottom right: NASA, detail of AS17-136-20760)

The conspiracists don't show you these photos and the many hundreds like them because then they'd have to explain why someone would need to cut and paste just the white stripes on the flag, or just the fitting at the end of a strut. That makes the cut-and-paste argument seem absurd -- which it is, when seen in the light of all the evidence.

Bennett and Percy (op. cit., p. 68) admit that "these partially hidden reticles [i.e., fiducials] may be the result of over exposure." But they don't pursue that hypothesis any further, and surely don't admit as such in their video What Happened on the Moon?. And on page 67 of the book they show the photo from Fig. 5 and identify the washed-out fiducial with the label "Whistle-Blowing". Which is it: an natural photographic phenomenon, or a whistle-blow? In fact, the authors attribute this claim to Ralph Rene, who is not a photographer. So even though David Percy, who is a photographer, correctly identifies the source of the washout, that doesn't prevent him from spreading a little misinformation in order to help out his whistle-blower theory.

http://www.clavius.org/photoret.html

Sorry but I do not see the additional ammo that you refer to. My son who is also a photographer by trade read this and agrees with the finding of Clavius.com.

I was a wedding photographer for years. I worked for Wise Photography. I also wear a film badge in my daily work....I don't agree..bummer.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:
I was a wedding photographer for years. I worked for Wise Photography. I also wear a film badge in my daily work....I don't agree..bummer.

So there again you offer nothing more than your opinion that cannot be substantiated with with some sort of evidence.

And my daughter wears a dosimeter in her job daily, so what is your point?

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:
I was a wedding photographer for years. I worked for Wise Photography. I also wear a film badge in my daily work....I don't agree..bummer.

So there again you offer nothing more than your opinion that cannot be substantiated with with some sort of evidence.

And my daughter wears a dosimeter in her job daily, so what is your point?

I have worked with radiation of every form since 1966 so what's your point ? My point is film exposed to radiation fogs. Like when it rains things get wet...you really need to think a little instead of just throwing out whatever comes into your mind.

The evidence is the moon pictures were not fogged hence they were not taken in space.

When I was in Nuclear Medicine around 1977-1982 the company scrapped out an old unit. It had a 8"sodium Iodide crystal. I took the components home and built a cosmic ray detector. As cosmic rays passed though the crystal they caused minute scintillations from the excitement of the structure of the crystal. That small amount of light was amplified by a photomultiplier tube which used the principle of cascading electrons to perform that function. The electrons were collected and amplified and I ran it to an oscope where I was able to see the energy level of the rays impacting the crystal. There were thousands of them. I am sure unhindered out in space there are billions of them covering the same 8" surface area....

I play with this stuff for fun ..call it curiosity.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:When I was in Nuclear Medicine around 1977-1982 the company scrapped out an old unit. It had a 8"sodium Iodide crystal. I took the components home and built a cosmic ray detector. As cosmic rays passed though the crystal they caused minute scintillations from the excitement of the structure of the crystal. That small amount of light was amplified by a photomultiplier tube which used the principle of cascading electrons to perform that function. The electrons were collected and amplified and I ran it to an oscope where I was able to see the energy level of the rays impacting the crystal. There were thousands of them. I am sure unhindered out in space there are billions of them covering the same 8" surface area....

I play with this stuff for fun ..call it curiosity.

I also do a lot of things for fun, but does that make me an expert, NO! I rely of sound evidence from from the scientific world and form my opinions based on that, I do not just throw things out without thinking about them first.

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:When I was in Nuclear Medicine around 1977-1982 the company scrapped out an old unit. It had a 8"sodium Iodide crystal. I took the components home and built a cosmic ray detector. As cosmic rays passed though the crystal they caused minute scintillations from the excitement of the structure of the crystal. That small amount of light was amplified by a photomultiplier tube which used the principle of cascading electrons to perform that function. The electrons were collected and amplified and I ran it to an oscope where I was able to see the energy level of the rays impacting the crystal. There were thousands of them. I am sure unhindered out in space there are billions of them covering the same 8" surface area....

I play with this stuff for fun ..call it curiosity.

I also do a lot of things for fun, but does that make me an expert, NO! I rely of sound evidence from from the scientific world and form my opinions based on that, I do not just throw things out without thinking about them first.

Have you ever worked at a NASA tracking station? I have, Rosman North Carolina. I was a video communications and test technician. I was working with the ATS-7 satellite program. I had a lot of other duties including taking data off the satellites as they passed over. Back then it was all paper punch tape recordings..LOL I can't imagine going to the moon depending on Paper punch tape systems... Failures were common. Once an engineer accidentally fired the main engine on the ATS -7 and sent it toward the sun. We stopped it but that used up most of the reserve fuel and from then on everything slowed down because all we had to move and position the unit was ion propulsion drives. ..very inefficient. Really? that many missions successfully to the moon and back...BAHAHAHAHAHA. Not from what I saw just at one tracking station...