It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by jra
Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
These are the 'elements' who would want to protect the mythological Apollo lunar landing sites because these landing sites don't really exist ... they are more likely to be crashed probe sites ...
Hence the terminology "Keepout Zone"
If the Apollo sites don't really exist and they want to keep future explorers away, then why are the "Keepout zones" only for Apollo 11 and 17? And not for Apollo's 12 - 16? Why are the zones so small (75m for A11 and 200m for A17)? Any future rover (be it private or from another country) will still be able to see the hardware from those distances. Or be able to drive right up to them for the A12 - 16 sites.
Originally posted by PsykoOps
Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
These are the 'elements' who would want to protect the mythological Apollo lunar landing sites because these landing sites don't really exist ... they are more likely to be crashed probe sites ...
Hence the terminology "Keepout Zone"
You are actually claiming that Nasa crashed probes that look precisely the same as we see in apollo photos and videos? Tell me how this magical probe then makes the footpaths, leaves the rover at exact place, plants a flag etc.? I really really wanna know this.
Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
"You can do this for more, all your doing with samples that you don't know where they came from say, a lunar meteorite, all your doing there is building up a statistical flux over the whole moon, and not really tying it to a specific basin.. "
Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by FoosM
This is one of those times when Never a Straight Answer applies...
In this video there seems to be a tacit acknowledgement amongst the participants here that there is on open issue with regard to the 'provenance' of Moon rocks samples which have been so exhaustively studied here on Earth.
" ...provenance... that we know where they came from... "
It would be nice to know what they were talking about behind the scenes!
Basically they are referring to meteorites that were found on the moon.
They also don't know where the samples came from - were they chipped off a massive formation or scooped out from the lurain.
Originally posted by Exuberant1
I don't think those people would risk their careers by suggestion the rocks weren't brought back from the moon.
Originally posted by FoosMTheir long held paradigms regarding Apollo are starting to conflict with their own science and research.
We might be seeing a paradigm shift here. But I dont expect full disclosure until the last Apollo astronaut have passed on to the other side. The weight of facing their family, friends and fans would be unfair, for all the decades they have been Carrying the Fire
Full Committee Hearing- NASA Human Spaceflight
2318 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 | 09/22/2011 - 10:00am - 12:00pm
NASA Human Spaceflight Past, Present, and Future: Where Do We Go From Here?
Witnesses
Mr. Neil A. Armstrong, Commander, Apollo 11
Captain Eugene A. Cernan USN (ret.), Commander, Apollo 17
Dr. Michael D. Griffin, Eminent Scholar and Professor, Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Alabama in Huntsville
Dr. Maria Zuber, E.A. Griswold Professor of Geophysics and Head of the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
I hope that Buzz will talk again about that "thing" on Phobos!!!!!!!!!!
"It's a big, big, tall rock. Now I could say it looks like maybe a crude construction device by some creatures who practiced on Phobos and then landed in Egypt and built the pyramids. I don't really believe that. But some people are liable to think that".
Originally posted by FoosM
You dont get what they are doing do you?
Think about the success rate for landing vehicles on foreign bodies.
Its not good.
Think about the success rates for lunar rovers traveling over the surface of mars or the moon.
Its not good.
Basically by putting any restrictions around their sites, they ensure that teams would not risk sending their probes even remotely close to any landing sites. It wont be worth the effort if it possibly means loosing your craft.
So I bet most teams, if not all, will just stay away and look for new sites to discover.
Who would want to bother anyway in re-discovering a part of the moon that supposedly has been thoroughly examined by humans. LOL.
Originally posted by jra
Why would one loose there craft? I don't understand what you mean by that. And what risk is there in going near the Apollo sites? Only Apollo 11 and 17 have the buffer zones. The rest do not.
Originally posted by jra
Originally posted by FoosM
You dont get what they are doing do you?
I guess not, but I'm sure you have some solid evidence that shows what they're really up to...
Think about the success rate for landing vehicles on foreign bodies.
Its not good.
Actually it's not that bad. A lot of the failures were from the rockets launching the would-be landers, and not the landers themselves. So if we're talking about the success rate for a vehicle landing on a foreign body. I think it would be fair to include only the failures where the lander itself failed and not the launch vehicle.
So the numbers for failed landers vs successful landers for both the Moon and Mars are:
14 failed, 19 successful
Originally posted by FoosM
Are you focusing on early attempts or all attempts?
In other words, I would expect better results over time, after many attempts.
He's gone out of this world, but is she out of his league?
The New York Post reported that the 81-year-old ex-astronaut is making another giant leap for mankind, dating a woman 30 years his junior.
He started dating Michelle Sucillon, 51, in June, on the heels of Aldrin filing for divorce from his third wife.
The two were spotted 'making out like teenagers' aboard an Acela train over the weekend.
His ex-wife, Lois Driggs Cannon, told the Post that she thinks Sucillon is a 'predator.'
She added, ‘I would hope we get back together... but I can’t tell him what to do. I think most wives warn their husbands of predatory women.'
Mr Aldrin filed for divorced his third wife, Lois Driggs Cannon, in June after 23 years of marriage.
In the petition, 'irreconcilable differences' is cited as the reason for the dissolution.
The couple tied the knot on Valentine's Day in 1988 but have no children together.
Days after he filed for divorce, Cannon and her daughter sued the former astronaut over Starbuzz, the promo business the three own, ETOnline.com reported.
the astronaut fought alcoholism and depression as he was thrust into the limelight after his mission to the moon in 1969.
He has since said that overcoming depression and alcohol was one of the hardest challenges of his life.
He admitted in Magnificent Desolation and another memoir, Return To Earth, that he had suffered from clinical depression and battled alcoholism after leaving NASA.
Buzz Aldrin, 81, filed for divorce from his 81-year-old wife in June, citing irreconcilable differences. Just five days later, the company Aldrin shares with his wife and stepdaughter sued Aldrin for breach of contract. The wife and stepdaughter claim Aldrin is trying to cut them out of the family-run business, but the family-run business is Buzz Aldrin.
Aldrin has since filed a countersuit against Starbuzz, claiming he was tricked into signing away legal rights to his name and image. Starbuzz is owned 35 percent by Aldrin, 35 percent by his wife, and 30 percent by the stepdaughter. Starbuzz LLC was founded in 2007, and the women argue they created the Buzz Aldrin brand, dating back to the beginning of the marriage. They point out that before the formation of Starbuzz, there was a similar entity called Starcraft which also worked at developing the brand.