|
Author |
Message |
Freddyfruitba... |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Freddyfruitba... World Chat Champion
Joined: 20 May 2016 Karma :
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
Kawasaki Jimbo |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Kawasaki Jimbo World Chat Champion
Joined: 09 Oct 2015 Karma :
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
- |
This post is not being displayed because the poster has bad karma. Unhide this post / all posts.
|
- Super Spammer
Joined: 22 Oct 2013 Karma :
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
Kawasaki Jimbo |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Kawasaki Jimbo World Chat Champion
Joined: 09 Oct 2015 Karma :
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
Polarbear |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Polarbear Super Spammer
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Karma :
|
Posted: 20:47 - 18 Jan 2019 Post subject: |
|
|
Didn't I read somewhere DairyLea had bought the mining rights for the cheese core of the moon off NASA but the Chinese are now contesting their right to sell it as they are on the moon now? ____________________ Triumph Trophy Launch Edition |
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
Islander |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Islander World Chat Champion
Joined: 05 Aug 2012 Karma :
|
Posted: 20:54 - 18 Jan 2019 Post subject: |
|
|
mpd72 CPT wrote: | How does that make a difference? Why have we never had orbiters or craft orbiting the moon within 20,000ft?
It has no atmosphere and very little gravity, so you'd like to have thought we could have mapped the much smaller moon's surface with a bit more like the detail we can map the entire surface of planet Earth to. |
Dig dig diggity dig...
First, understand orbital mechanics, then understand some of the major issues involved in stupidly low orbits.
"Low lunar orbit (LLO)—orbits below 100 km (62 mi) altitude—are of particular interest in exploration of the Moon, but suffer from gravitational perturbation effects that make most unstable, and leave only a few orbital inclinations possible for indefinite frozen orbits, useful for long-term stays in LLO."
Now, even assuming you could discount the masscon and gravitational problems at 20,000 feet (6154m) you would need a velocity of 2.5km/s to maintain a circular orbit which given that the escape velocity from the surface of the moon is 2.38 km/s, you are going to have serious problems
Orbiting a body at that low an altitude is just impossible unless you use something like a forced orbit and for that, you're going to have to carry a very significant mass of fuel to maintain the necessary delta v.
50km is a very low orbit indeed. The LRO is a pretty amazing mission overall.
Here, have a JCB - it'll be quicker |
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
Chinaboy |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Chinaboy World Chat Champion
Joined: 14 Jan 2007 Karma :
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
Pjay |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Pjay World Chat Champion
Joined: 18 Jan 2016 Karma :
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
Hetzer |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Hetzer Super Spammer
Joined: 19 Feb 2007 Karma :
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
Sister Sledge |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Sister Sledge World Chat Champion
Joined: 17 Aug 2018 Karma :
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
RhynoCZ |
This post is not being displayed .
|
RhynoCZ Super Spammer
Joined: 09 Mar 2012 Karma :
|
Posted: 09:56 - 20 Jan 2019 Post subject: |
|
|
All the pictures from the moon have dark background and no stars (except the Sun) only because of exposure of the camera. The moon is very bright and reflective object, you may even see that every single night, when the moon is in an appropriate positions.
If they landed on the dark side of the moon and took pictures of the ''sky'' you'd see all the stars and probably other planets. They would also die, because of the very low temperatures, but that's besides the point.
Also, do not forget the time, when they were there. Most of the wide shot pictures are going to be composites. Just like every single picture of the planet Earth taken from the orbit. ____________________ '87 Honda XBR 500, '96 Kawasaki ZX7R P1, '90 Honda CB-1, '88 Kawasaki GPz550, MZ 150 ETZ
'95 Mercedes-Benz w202 C200 CGI, '98 Mercedes-Benz w210 E200 Kompressor |
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
MCN |
This post is not being displayed .
|
MCN Super Spammer
Joined: 22 Jul 2015 Karma :
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
Hetzer |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Hetzer Super Spammer
Joined: 19 Feb 2007 Karma :
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
Kawasaki Jimbo |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Kawasaki Jimbo World Chat Champion
Joined: 09 Oct 2015 Karma :
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
M.C |
This post is not being displayed .
|
M.C Super Spammer
Joined: 29 Sep 2015 Karma :
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
RhynoCZ |
This post is not being displayed .
|
RhynoCZ Super Spammer
Joined: 09 Mar 2012 Karma :
|
Posted: 13:41 - 20 Jan 2019 Post subject: |
|
|
''The original photograph was taken on 6 February 1972 and showed the crew of Apollo 16, Lunar Module Pilot Charles M. Duke, Commander John W. Young, and Command Module Pilot Thomas K. Mattingly II, during a training exercise at the Kennedy Space Center''
But, I'll play on...
https://www.duckrabbit.info/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/moon.jpg ____________________ '87 Honda XBR 500, '96 Kawasaki ZX7R P1, '90 Honda CB-1, '88 Kawasaki GPz550, MZ 150 ETZ
'95 Mercedes-Benz w202 C200 CGI, '98 Mercedes-Benz w210 E200 Kompressor |
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
Islander |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Islander World Chat Champion
Joined: 05 Aug 2012 Karma :
|
Posted: 16:42 - 20 Jan 2019 Post subject: |
|
|
Hetzer wrote: | So NASA couldn't have sent auto-landing stuff there, to give a bit of backup to the lie? |
Yes but that wouldn't have allowed men to be photographed or the rovers or any of the science experiments.
Hetzer wrote: | The camera that films the landing (rough as shit footage, because that made it easier to obfuscate), then the camera outside after the landing, no blast crater, no dust in the foot-pods. |
The camera mounted on the landing leg was a low resolution TV camera, the high rest stuff was carried by the astronauts.
Why would there be a blast crater? The LEM landed on solid lunar regolith covered by a layer of fine dust. Which sums up the flatter lunar surface. Why would there be dust on the foot pods? There's no wind to blow it there and the stuff kicked up by landing would have been blown away from the LEM.
Hetzer wrote: | The Hasselblad camera boss who said he had no way to explain how the pics of an astronaut with his back to the sun could have come out so clear unless there were very powerful lights illuminating the front of the astronaut. |
Simple. Sunlight reflected back off the lunar surface - much the same as you'd get on a beach but with no atmosphere to interfere.
Hetzer wrote: | On and on. Van Allen radiation belt, not survivable. |
Which is why the Apollo mission planners arranged the command module's orbit to spend the minimum amount of time inside the Van Allen belts. Nonetheless, the astronauts did pick up some extra radiation but not enough to affect their health.
Hetzer wrote: | The evidence is overwhelming. Did you know, if you speed up the footage of them driving and jumping around on the moon by 100% it looks exactly like they're driving around in earth gravity? They halved the speed of the footage. The crudity of the scam and all the mistakes they made is what's so incredible about 'the moon landings'. Lol. But the old adage, "tell a big enough lie and nobody will question it" was certainly true. It fooled the world for years. |
The scientific evidence that debunks the conspiracy theories is even more overwhelming and supported by repeatable facts.
I'll give you three simple examples of why the conspiracy theories are nonsense.
1. The missions were tracked by amateurs, scientists and governments worldwide. There were far too many people involved in the various aspects of both the missions and tracking to keep a lid on any fakery. They went there, they returned.
One of the governments watching with a very keen eye was the Soviet government. If there had been any fakery that would literally have given them the biggest propoganda coup of the century - do you honestly think they wouldn't have used that to their advantage? Really?
2. There was an experiment performed on camera live on the surface of the Moon that could not have been repeated on Earth. David Scott , the Commander of the Apollo 15 mission tested Galileo's famous experiment by dropping a geological hammer and a feather from the same height. Being no atmosphere to add resistance, they struck the lunar surface at exactly the same moment.
By the way, I'm fully expecting you to claim some mass trickery with this one but why would they? It's pointless.
3. The lunar rocks that were returned to the Earth and given out to research institutes all over the world. Nothing but nothing could fake the effects of billions of years of exposure to hard vacuum and cosmic radiation. There's no rock like it on Earth - similar, yes as in a basalt is a basalt but the subtle differences introduced by environment make them very different indeed.
As I said before critical thinking is a very good thing but it has to be backed by reliable information - not dogma based on dislike of a culture/government or whatever. Think man, think.
Last edited by Islander on 17:45 - 20 Jan 2019; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
MCN |
This post is not being displayed .
|
MCN Super Spammer
Joined: 22 Jul 2015 Karma :
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
MCN |
This post is not being displayed .
|
MCN Super Spammer
Joined: 22 Jul 2015 Karma :
|
Posted: 17:07 - 20 Jan 2019 Post subject: |
|
|
Islander wrote: | Hetzer wrote: | So NASA couldn't have sent auto-landing stuff there, to give a bit of backup to the lie? |
Yes but that wouldn't have allowed men to be photographed or the rovers or any of the science experiments.
Hetzer wrote: | The camera that films the landing (rough as shit footage, because that made it easier to obfuscate), then the camera outside after the landing, no blast crater, no dust in the foot-pods. |
The camera mounted on the landing leg was a low resolution TV camera, the high rest stuff was carried by the astronauts.
Why would there be a blast crater? The LEM landed on solid lunar regolith covered by a layer of fine dust. Which sums up the flatter lunar surface. Why would there be dust on the foot pods? There's no wind to blow it there and the stuff kicked up by landing would have been blown away from the LEM.
Hetzer wrote: | The Hasselblad camera boss who said he had no way to explain how the pics of an astronaut with his back to the sun could have come out so clear unless there were very powerful lights illuminating the front of the astronaut. |
Simple. Sunlight reflected back off the lunar surface - much the same as you'd get on a beach but with no atmosphere to interfere.
Hetzer wrote: | On and on. Van Allen radiation belt, not survivable. |
Which is why the Apollo mission planners arranged the command module's orbit to spend the minimum amount of time inside the Van Allen belts. Nonetheless, the astronauts did pick up some extra radiation but not enough to affect their health.
Hetzer wrote: | The evidence is overwhelming. Did you know, if you speed up the footage of them driving and jumping around on the moon by 100% it looks exactly like they're driving around in earth gravity? They halved the speed of the footage. The crudity of the scam and all the mistakes they made is what's so incredible about 'the moon landings'. Lol. But the old adage, "tell a big enough lie and nobody will question it" was certainly true. It fooled the world for years. |
The scientific evidence that debunks the conspiracy theories is even more overwhelming and supported by repeatable facts.
I'll give you three simple examples of why the conspiracy theories are nonsense.
1. The missions were tracked by amateurs, scientists and governments worldwide. There were far too many people involved in the various aspects of both the missions and tracking to keep a lid on any fakery. They went there, they returned.
One of the governments watching with a very keen eye was the Soviet government. If there had been any fakery that would literally have given them the biggest propoganda coup of the century - do you [/i]honestly think they wouldn't have used that to their advantage? Really?
2. There was an experiment performed on camera live on the surface of the Moon that could not have been repeated on Earth. David Scott , the Commander of the Apollo 15 mission tested Galileo's famous experiment by dropping a geological hammer and a feather from the same height. Being no atmosphere to add resistance, they struck the lunar surface at exactly the same moment.
By the way, I'm fully expecting you to claim some mass trickery with this one but why would they? It's pointless.
3. The lunar rocks that were returned to the Earth and given out to research institutes all over the world. Nothing but nothing could fake the effects of billions of years of exposure to hard vacuum and cosmic radiation. There's no rock like it on Earth - similar, yes as in a basalt is a basalt but the subtle differences introduced by environment make them very different indeed.
As I said before critical thinking is a very good thing but it has to be backed by reliable information - not dogma based on dislike of a culture/government or whatever. Think man, think. |
The man is obliviously playing the Devil's Advocaat. ____________________ Disclaimer: The comments above may be predicted text and not necessarily the opinion of MCN. |
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
Hetzer |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Hetzer Super Spammer
Joined: 19 Feb 2007 Karma :
|
Posted: 00:38 - 22 Jan 2019 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
Hetzer |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Hetzer Super Spammer
Joined: 19 Feb 2007 Karma :
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
Kawasaki Jimbo |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Kawasaki Jimbo World Chat Champion
Joined: 09 Oct 2015 Karma :
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
Pjay |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Pjay World Chat Champion
Joined: 18 Jan 2016 Karma :
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
weasley |
This post is not being displayed .
|
weasley World Chat Champion
Joined: 16 Oct 2010 Karma :
|
Posted: 09:38 - 22 Jan 2019 Post subject: |
|
|
And yet Hasselblad themselves have a whole section about their cameras in space and on the Moon.
Oh wait, it’s on the internet. ____________________
Yamaha XJ600 | Yamaha YZF600R Thundercat | KTM 990 SMT | BMW F900XR TE |
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
Sister Sledge |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Sister Sledge World Chat Champion
Joined: 17 Aug 2018 Karma :
|
|
Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
Old Thread Alert!
The last post was made 5 years, 95 days ago. Instead of replying here, would creating a new thread be more useful? |
|
|
|