»Lunar landings«
|
|||
 Tiefling: If you want to see how all the popular "proof" of a faked moon landing can be debunked, check out this site:
 This site only deals with the photographic anomalies - Which the Moon Hoax brigade have already acknowledged. But yet whenever this topic is raised they always fall back to these same explanations. What about the radiation? What about the (missing) blast crater? What about the faked footage? What about the amazing "first time out" mission success? Why no pictures of the sky taken from the moon? Why were some pictures faked? posted by Marl64 |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgReligion and Mysteries, from worship to werewolvesConspiracy theoriesLunar landings |
|
|||
 Marl64: What about the radiation?
What about the (missing) blast crater? What about the faked footage? What about the amazing "first time out" mission success? Why no pictures of the sky taken from the moon? Why were some pictures faked? Everything I can be explained easily. Except maybe 2 or 3 things, which can be explained less easily, but can be explained nevertheless. posted by knn |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
 Marl64: What about the radiation?
What about the (missing) blast crater? What about the faked footage? What about the amazing "first time out" mission success? Why no pictures of the sky taken from the moon? Why were some pictures faked? More than one of those can be answered at "bad astronomy": As an example, the "missing" blast crater: Bad: In the pictures taken of the lunar lander by the astronauts, the TV show continues, there is no blast crater. A rocket capable of landing on the Moon should have burned out a huge crater on the surface, yet there is nothing there.
Good: When someone driving a car pulls into a parking spot, do they do it at 100 kilometers per hour? Of course not. They slow down first, easing off the accelerator. The astronauts did the same thing. Sure, the rocket on the lander was capable of 10,000 pounds of thrust, but they had a throttle. They fired the rocket hard to deorbit and slow enough to land on the Moon, but they didn't need to thrust that hard as they approached the lunar surface; they throttled down to about 3000 pounds of thrust. Now here comes a little bit of math: the engine nozzle was about 54 inches across (from the Encyclopaedia Astronautica), which means it had an area of 2300 square inches. That in turn means that the thrust generated a pressure of only about 1.5 pounds per square inch! That's not a lot of pressure. Moreover, in a vacuum, the exhaust from a rocket spreads out very rapidly. On Earth, the air in our atmosphere constrains the thrust of a rocket into a narrow column, which is why you get long flames and columns of smoke from the back of a rocket. In a vacuum, no air means the exhaust spreads out even more, lowering the pressure. That's why there's no blast crater! Three thousand pounds of thrust sounds like a lot, but it was so spread out it was actually rather gentle. posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
 Quote: When someone driving a car pulls into a parking spot, do they do it at 100 kilometers per hour? Of course not. They slow down first, easing off the accelerator. The astronauts did the same thing. Nice analogy, but with a couple of flaws; A car is constantly being slowed by the road on which it travels and requires force to move it. The lunar module was in contrast subject to the gravity of the moon accelerating it, requiring force to stop it. The force of gravity increases as the lander nears the moon and so additional thrust is needed just to maintain the same speed and more to slow it down. Quote: That's why there's no blast crater! Three thousand pounds of thrust sounds like a lot, but it was so spread out it was actually rather gentle. Gentle enough to deliver a force sufficient to counter the affects of the lunar gravity. posted by Marl64 |
|||
|
|||
|
||||
 Marl64: The force of gravity increases as the lander nears the moon and so additional thrust is needed just to maintain the same speed and more to slow it down. What "bad astronomy's explanation unfortunately doesn't mention are the following 2 important facts:
posted by knn |
||||
|
||||
|
|||
|
knn: Quote:we landed on the moon. we should build a moon base. we have the technology why cant we do it?
Noone has the technology, flying to the moon was a piece of cake comparing to having a moon base there. Everyone has the technology. Your highschool (or whatever you Europeans call it) Physics text book has the technology. No One has the money, and there is little to be gained economically by even returning to the moon, let alone colonizing it or even establishing a permanent presense. posted by GuyFromOH |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
knn: knn:30% of USAnians believe the moon landing was a hoax.
Not true. Ahem, of course this figure differs since different polls are made in different years. One poll was taken at a "Conspiracy Theorists Unite" Convention, the other was taken from normal people *discrepancy explained* Marl64: One of the most compelling observations is that back then, with the technology they had, they were able to get to the moon and back on their first attempt without any major problems.
Twenty years later, technology had advanced beyond all recognition and yet they couldn't get the hubble into orbit without making a complete mess of it. Does this mean that as technology has improved, the quality of scientists, technicians and other staff has gone through the floor? The technology used to get to the moon was simple Newtonian Physics that have been around for hundreds of years. The only reason there were missions prior to Apollo 11 was to fine-tune the mechanics, all of which were adapted from Naval and Aircraft designs that had already been proven. Once they were convinced all the mechanics were reliable, pow... to the moon!. posted by GuyFromOH |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Marl64: What about the radiation? The radiation on the moon should be the same as that in earth orbit. with insignificant variation Marl64: What about the (missing) blast crater? Do you get a blast crater everytime you park your car? posted by GuyFromOH |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
GuyFromOH: Marl64:What about the (missing) blast crater?
Do you get a blast crater everytime you park your car? Sorry about that, I see someone explained that already in a post I didn't read yet. posted by GuyFromOH |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 GuyFromOH: Everyone has the technology. Your highschool (or whatever you Europeans call it) Physics text book has the technology.
No One has the money, and there is little to be gained economically by even returning to the moon Good point! GuyFromOH: The radiation on the moon should be the same as that in earth orbit. with insignificant variation No, not on the moon. Usual when people talk about moon hoax they mean the Van Allen Belt radiation, which is stronger. However it is still weak. Van Allen radiation belt moon hoax ♣ Moreover by "high radiation" the sceptics mean "too high radiation for the sensitive photo camera" GuyFromOH: Sorry about that, I see someone "SOMEONE"... ? GuyFromOH: in a post I didn't read yet. *runs away crying* posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
What? They can bring us to the moon but they cannot do anything against karies? The moon landing must be a hoax!  posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 a good read...the conspiracies may die out soon.  posted by allone |
|||
|
|||
1, 2, 3
Goto page Previous
1, 2, 3
 Register Log in |
The time now is 7 January 2009, 18:14 php B.B. |