How many ATS members still believe in the Moon landings?

a reply to: Noinden

Why?

Every single so called question concerning the Moon Landing has been answered dozens, hundreds, even thousands of times by folks who actually know what they're talking about.

With a little reading, any question you might have has probably been answered somewhere.

What are your concerns?

a reply to: seagull

I am not sure you read my reply the way I intended. I have no doubts (not I have doubts) we landed on the moon. No concerns. We went to the moon multiple times.

I liked the conspiracy theories, but i do think humanity has landed on the moon.

I also think we should go back. I think H3 or H4 can be mined at the surface. Efficient energy.

I'm new, but I have always believed in the moon landings. I will always believe in the moon landings. I understand the way physics works in a vacuum. I think it's the most important thing mankind has ever achieved.

Yes, we landed on the moon. Yes, it happened EXACTLY AS ADVERTISED.

This whole "moon landings were faked" nonsense was dreamed up by a couple of whack jobs with way too much time on their hands, who the entire world would have discredited immediately if they had actually met them before swallowing their rhetoric. Seriously, one of the guys had a hen-house full of cats and looked like he wanted to live in there with them.

a reply to: Noinden

Apparently I did. Sorry about that.

Totally misread it.

a reply to: seagull

No worries, that was typed on no coffee at the start of the day, it could have said I saw a Unicorn on the moon for all I remember

originally posted by: ugie1028
I liked the conspiracy theories, but i do think humanity has landed on the moon.

I also think we should go back. I think H3 or H4 can be mined at the surface. Efficient energy.

He3 IS being mined, i'm quite sure of that. Probably fuel for the space fleet & the Martian colony

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Noinden

Why?

Every single so called question concerning the Moon Landing has been answered dozens, hundreds, even thousands of times by folks who actually know what they're talking about.

With a little reading, any question you might have has probably been answered somewhere.

What are your concerns?

OK, how high did the Lunar Lander have to rise to rendezvous with the Lunar Orbiter and how fast did it have to be going when it started to match orbital speed and dock and how many orbits did it have to do this?

Also why does the reflection of the Sun in the visors of the Lunar Astronauts look so different than that in the visor of Astronauts doing spacewalks outside the Shuttle?

I don't have to believe in them, because they actually happened.

They went to the Moon, found some rocks, no oil, and then they never really went back. They might go back to get some Helium-3 if they can work the kinks out of nuclear fusion power generation here on Earth, but don't count on it.

originally posted by: Maverick7

Also why does the reflection of the Sun in the visors of the Lunar Astronauts look so different than that in the visor of Astronauts doing spacewalks outside the Shuttle?

Ever think space suits evolved, technology evolves, or different missions have different parameters?

From: history.nasa.gov...&ved=0ahUKEwjwze-tgtzPAhXDCD4KHeN2A9UQFghoMA0&usg=AFQjCNGgndyxzD7BRL96xnBulDqm4jc_wQ&sig2=yEMJes949CvfVp2rgAmguA

I would like to know if you are making old stuff into new stuff?

No. Materials used in making the space suits are purchased from other manufacturers and we begin
building from scratch. The Apollo suits that were on the moon were designed for a special purpose and
were tailored for each astronaut. The new suits used on the Shuttle are not tailored and are designed for
special features that were not required for the Apollo suit.

Think before conspiraciezing?

Nope. Convex helmet face shield is constant. It's the one photographic element which is demonstrably inconsistent.

originally posted by: Maverick7

Nope. Convex helmet face shield is constant. It's the one photographic element which is demonstrably inconsistent.

Explain, please.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Fusion reactors are already being advanced, both for space use & here on Earth, since 1 gram of He3 equals about 80 tons of TNT, and D2 slightly less. Gram for gram it's worth 100 times more than gold, has to be manufactured here at great cost, but theres 1000 tons of it on/in the moon.
No there's no oil there, just something much better than oil.

Big business for somebody.

a reply to: playswithmachines

Fusion reactors are already being advanced,

Not very rapidly. A 3He reactor would be more difficult and is further still down the road.

a reply to: Maverick7

Yeap, the reflection of the sun has nothing to do with how clean the visor is, if the astronauts were kicking up dust, the astronauts were in the shade of the moon lander, or what relative angle the visor was to the sun? Or any other number of environmental conditions.

Stuff like this you mean?

These are very old plans BTW
The latest generation makes use of the pinch effect to turn plasma pressure directly into electic current, they need minimal shielding, are incredibly safe, and can be made suitcase sized. They are oscillation type reactors, without the cumbersome mirrors (like the SOAR in the pic)
There are at least 7 prototypes, i have 2 of them right here.
The advantage of these is they are designed to run on D2 which gives less neutron radiation & can be found in seawater.

Passing the neutrons through a hydrogen envelope produces yet more D2 so it actually makes it's own fuel from plain Hydrogen which you can find anywhere, even in space.

These are what i call 'advancements' dear Phage.

a reply to: playswithmachines

These are very old plans BTW

Those aren't plans.
Vague conceptual drawings. Perhaps.

A useable fusion reactor, much less one using 3He, is a long way down the road.

a reply to: Phage

They are already here & have been for decades. Only one company on this planet was making He3 as far back as the late 50's, you know who that was?

Boyd Bushman had a very interesting pic of the wreckage from the nuclear plane crash, parts that i later recognised (since i now have most of the fusion plans) were from an advanced fusion reactor, albeit a 1960's one.

If i get the time i will upload the pics, in the meantime keep guessing who supplied the fuel......
ETA: That particular reactor had a lot of neodymium in it, guess who's cornered that market already? Not the USA.

a reply to: Maverick7

Oh, if I remember my photography? A small camera aperture will make a light source starburst. A large camera aperture will make a light source look like a disk. Then you have different lens sizes, qualities, and filters.