| | | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | this idiot believes we never went to the moon
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 439828
7/2/2009 1:21 AM | | Re: this idiot believes we never went to the moon | Quote |
a good point is made....on the moon the exploding gases don't collide with air and so there is no thrust...
You are a genius...no wonder with people like you around that the human race did actually send a man to the moon and will be sending many more very very soon.
Like I said, there was no need to worry. the craters are there and who cares?
the thrust couldn't push the dust cause the thrust had no air to push against....only the moon. Good point. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 716019
Free-fall all the way to the moon's surface, kaboom, smash, bang.
 <----man in the moon taking a real hard hit from the free-falling LM |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 716019
7/2/2009 1:24 AM | | Re: this idiot believes we never went to the moon | Quote |
Actually they make them like that all the time over at NASA; how do you think astronauts floating around the ISS are able to take pictures and video? CCDs are also very sensitive to high temperatures. It's called making your camera white and reflective.
Here's a picture of a recent camera used during a spacewalk; note how like the Apollo cameras, special care is given to making it white like the spacesuit itself and reflective to sunlight:
[ link to www.nasa.gov]
terrific photo! and the camera was one that never needed any adjustment of any type....it could automatically calculate what the center would be of each shot....
because it was fastened to the astronauts chests and they couldn't have composed these pictures...
Imagine that! These cameras were so advanced they automatically assumed all needed adjusments of position and lighting and just produced these priceless amazing perfect compositions without even having been directed by a person!
And look! the astronauts themselves are just amazing.
They expertly aim and snap the precision pictures without even being able to see what they are snapping while wearing gloves which most of us would find too clumsly to even wave in....WOW!
They really don't make 'em like that anymore!
No wonder these boys were so tongue tied in their press conference! |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 439828
7/2/2009 1:26 AM | | Re: this idiot believes we never went to the moon | Quote |
a good point is made....on the moon the exploding gases don't collide with air and so there is no thrust...
Dear god you just failed physics 101. Thrust isn't created by engine exhaust colliding with air molecules, it's created simply by the fact that the engine exhaust rapidly leaves the spacecraft in a direction opposite the desired thrust; this is basic Newtonian mechanics. How else does the shuttle get thrust to perform rendezvous burns or deorbit burns in the vacuum of space? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 715991
someone has previously pointed out that the space shuttles have never actually ever reached the vacuum of space, but rather always have some form of atmosphere around the ship, and that the ships are in a slow free-fall back to the earth. |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 711198
7/2/2009 1:26 AM | | Re: this idiot believes we never went to the moon | Quote |
wow thanks for that! You're right...you did say thrust...and luckily we can see at about the 5:30 point below that the craters were there...just invisible...invisible blast craters from these great thrust calculations. Perfect.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 716019
Reading comprehension much?
Do you think "You can see it in some of the surface photographs" means the same thing as "At 5:30 on some lossy, compressed video made by a hoax believer?"
The crater is small. You actually have to look for it. But if you look, it is there (less present in missions like 11, when there was significant lateral movement of the spacecraft during the final descent.)
In addition, the crater is directly under the engine bell, which means directly under the LM, which means largely in shadow as well. You won't see it in anything but a shot taken of or at the underside of the LM.
But then, you haven't bothered to look, have you?
(Oh, yeah, and I didn't say "thrust" either. Actually, I calculated delta-V. I didn't calculate the thrust of the ascent engine. I could take a crack at it; I know the basics needed, but I wouldn't be that confident in my answers. Doing delta-V's isn't exactly rocket science. Working out the behavior of a thrust chamber is. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 715991
7/2/2009 1:30 AM | | Re: this idiot believes we never went to the moon | Quote |
terrific photo! and the camera was one that never needed any adjustment of any type....it could automatically calculate what the center would be of each shot....
because it was fastened to the astronauts chests and they couldn't have composed these pictures... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 716019
It had paddles for adjustment with gloves on as it was an SLR camera (imagine that, someone knows how to use manual settings - I do it all the time with my camera). It was not permanently fastened to their chests, they could detach it and use an ironsight for pointing, but once again you seem to think that repeating a lie makes it true. I just posted a bunch of failed photos, but you still repeat the lies. I guess this is what a nutjob does when he runs out of excuses. |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 711198
7/2/2009 1:30 AM | | Re: this idiot believes we never went to the moon | Quote |
someone has previously pointed out that the space shuttles have never actually ever reached the vacuum of space, but rather always have some form of atmosphere around the ship, and that the ships are in a slow free-fall back to the earth. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 439828
Err...for all practical purposes the Space Shuttle IS in vacuum. Air is not what defines an orbit. The Moon, after all, is still in orbit around the Earth. And we certainly don't claim the atmosphere reaches that far!
Free-fall is, well, the motion of any object that is falling towards a gravitational source without anything holding it back. An orbit is, by definition, free-fall -- an orbit is the act of falling at a planet but continually "missing" (due to forward motion). |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 716019
7/2/2009 1:33 AM | | Re: this idiot believes we never went to the moon | Quote |
wow thanks for that! You're right...you did say thrust...and luckily we can see at about the 5:30 point below that the craters were there...just invisible...invisible blast craters from these great thrust calculations. Perfect.
Reading comprehension much?
Do you think "You can see it in some of the surface photographs" means the same thing as "At 5:30 on some lossy, compressed video made by a hoax believer?"
The crater is small. You actually have to look for it. But if you look, it is there (less present in missions like 11, when there was significant lateral movement of the spacecraft during the final descent.)
In addition, the crater is directly under the engine bell, which means directly under the LM, which means largely in shadow as well. You won't see it in anything but a shot taken of or at the underside of the LM.
But then, you haven't bothered to look, have you?
(Oh, yeah, and I didn't say "thrust" either. Actually, I calculated delta-V. I didn't calculate the thrust of the ascent engine. I could take a crack at it; I know the basics needed, but I wouldn't be that confident in my answers. Doing delta-V's isn't exactly rocket science. Working out the behavior of a thrust chamber is. Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 711198
righto delta-V it is.
and good a thing
just like we know that the crater is just in the shadow....otherwise we might think it just wasn't there!
Quick thinking that luckily we find the real reason why the crators are so hard to see...they're in the shadows and they're little...even smaller than the astronaut's footprints that are plastered everywhere...
wow that explains everything. Thank you. Now I am packing...I know we'll be headed back that way and I can't wait to be one of the first moon tourists.....just as soon as the stimulus packages restimulate us to have more money....we'll be going back...and the moon won't be hot or cold as you pointed out, so I don't have to worry about that either....great, |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 715991
7/2/2009 1:41 AM | | Re: this idiot believes we never went to the moon | Quote |
someone has previously pointed out that the space shuttles have never actually ever reached the vacuum of space, but rather always have some form of atmosphere around the ship, and that the ships are in a slow free-fall back to the earth. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 439828
Another physics 101 failure. ALL satellites, I repeat, ALL satellites are in free fall around the earth. The amount of atmosphere present at even the lowest shuttle orbits is about 6 molecules per cubic centimeter; it might as well be nothing for the purpose of "pushing off" something. The reason the shuttle is able to maneuver is solely because of Newtonian mechanics. It's also how all deep space probes maneuver. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 716019
7/2/2009 1:41 AM | | Re: this idiot believes we never went to the moon | Quote |
terrific photo! and the camera was one that never needed any adjustment of any type....it could automatically calculate what the center would be of each shot....
because it was fastened to the astronauts chests and they couldn't have composed these pictures...
It had paddles for adjustment with gloves on as it was an SLR camera (imagine that, someone knows how to use manual settings - I do it all the time with my camera). It was not permanently fastened to their chests, they could detach it and use an ironsight for pointing, but once again you seem to think that repeating a lie makes it true. I just posted a bunch of failed photos, but you still repeat the lies. I guess this is what a nutjob does when he runs out of excuses. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 715991
Yes yes and ironsight for sure....thanks for the failed photos...glad they weren't as good as we thougnt...just makes 'em human after all. But still
Astounding dexterity and amazing job! These astronauts were able to manually change the settings using paddles and an ironsight...wow...and all while also performing all those crafty experiments they did
such as roaring around on the moon rover kicking up large rooster tails of dust that arced through the air in sharp falls as they raced around the area. Guess the rover had a lot more thrust and the arcs of dust fell in the exact shapes they would have taken had there actually been air for the dust to hit against....but as you point out, there wasn't....no air and thus no thrust.
gee...these boys were talented. They did so much in so little time...all those hundreds of photos including the failed ones...supermen really, wouldn't you say? |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 711198
7/2/2009 1:42 AM | | Re: this idiot believes we never went to the moon | Quote |
oh good...that's out of the way too.Thanks for all you r hard work and lightening calculations! Quoting: Anonymous Coward 716019
I don't know about the AC, but I did the one I mentioned about a year ago. Would probably take me a couple of hours just to gather up the data again to repeat it.
No danger of radiation and they had just enough thrust to gently hover and float down, leaving the surface soft and printable as we see in the numerous photos of the numerous footprints around the LM... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 716019
Show me just one photograph of an astronaut walking around UNDER the LM. That's where the dust was blown away. Not four meters away where the astronauts were taking pictures of their bootprints.
just as a I thought! What a marvel of engineering....
guess they just don't make 'em now like they used too....
too bad we had to use up all our money taking care of all the drowning folks in Katrina and all the homeless families drifting through our cities with nowhere to work and nothing to fo. That has cost us so much as well as providing good health care for the children. Now there's just nothing left. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 716019
Pretty close. If you were asked right now to donate $500 from your tax return for a return to the Moon within the next five years, would you do it? Would all your neighbors? So far, no politician has dared ask.
Nor do any space scientists want them to ask. There's no point in doing "Apollo II." We need different goals, different technologies; we need to go forward, not back!
That is the reason we don't have these engineering skills any longer and can't go and walk on the moon.
Well, like I said....should be any day now. I'm gonna book my reservation....
you? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 716019
We have the engineering. We have the technology. What we don't have is the six million.....err....make that 60 billion dollars.
Exquisitely timed hovering saves on dust every time.... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 716019
Have you read a single response anyone has given to you? Yes, there was dust! How many times do we have to repeat it! There was dust, there was even a small crater from all the removed dust! There were trails and patterns in the dust! There is dust in the 16mm film! There is dust talked about in the radio transcriptions! There is dust visible from freaking ORBIT! |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 439828
7/2/2009 1:43 AM | | Re: this idiot believes we never went to the moon | Quote |
Good job not reading what I said. The camera was not in direct contact with the lunar surface, so there was no way for heat to transfer directly to it from the surface - there's no convective heating in a vacuum and since the cameras were designed to be shiny and reflective, radiative transfers of heat from the sun were largely reflected and irradiated back out into space. Good job showing you know nothing about how heat transfer works in a vacuum. By your logic, the interior of ISS should be that of an easy bake oven. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 715991
Here is another one for you all, if there is no atmosphere on the moon, light hits the moon in straight lines and also reflects off the moon again in straight lines. An atmosphere diffuses light, so in all of the Apollo photos, where there is shade, there is never seen light and dark patches mixed, in the shading of the astronauts, LM, or surrounding landscape. it is just an all-over union of shading everywhere. Something like that should only ever happen in an environment with an atmosphere that diffuses light rays evenly. |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 711198
7/2/2009 1:45 AM | | Re: this idiot believes we never went to the moon | Quote |
Dear god you just failed physics 101. Thrust isn't created by engine exhaust colliding with air molecules, it's created simply by the fact that the engine exhaust rapidly leaves the spacecraft in a direction opposite the desired thrust; this is basic Newtonian mechanics. How else does the shuttle get thrust to perform rendezvous burns or deorbit burns in the vacuum of space? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 715991
Oh, heh. I missed this one. Do you think he believes rockets don't work out of the atmosphere? Hey, don't laugh -- I've met them.
More seriously, the way he's working his way through the playbook (and his lack of basic understanding in physics) makes me fear very much we're going to hear the pencil-on-the-finger analogy.
I have to say...it wasn't until Jay was explaining it (for the tenth time!) that I finally shook free of the "pencil-and-finger" model myself! |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 716019
7/2/2009 1:53 AM | | Re: this idiot believes we never went to the moon | Quote |
Good job not reading what I said. The camera was not in direct contact with the lunar surface, so there was no way for heat to transfer directly to it from the surface - there's no convective heating in a vacuum and since the cameras were designed to be shiny and reflective, radiative transfers of heat from the sun were largely reflected and irradiated back out into space. Good job showing you know nothing about how heat transfer works in a vacuum. By your logic, the interior of ISS should be that of an easy bake oven.
Here is another one for you all, if there is no atmosphere on the moon, light hits the moon in straight lines and also reflects off the moon again in straight lines. An atmosphere diffuses light, so in all of the Apollo photos, where there is shade, there is never seen light and dark patches mixed, in the shading of the astronauts, LM, or surrounding landscape. it is just an all-over union of shading everywhere. Something like that should only ever happen in an environment with an atmosphere that diffuses light rays evenly. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 439828
Not in direct contact so not hot. Perfectly understandable...I'll remember that.
The camera itself could never absorb energy or heat in a vacuum due its very camerness ..only the moon could....thank you for your help.
I know nothing and think nothing, but that god willing we WILL see the surface of the moon close up with our very eyes and walk on it with our very own feet soon. Very soon. As soon as there is world peace and we are all safe in our homes....and free, just like we are, a free country with laws the mean we can't be dragged from our beds at night and kept in cells with no charges being filed against us with no recourse to lawyers. Freedom for all. that's right.
The shade is light and dark patches mixed with an over all union....you should be a poet.
And that does explain the awful amount of thrust demonstrated by the lunar rover and the lack of thrust and dust by the LM...because it now has become clearer than if there were no atmosphere and no trip to the moon after all. Dang. |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 711198
7/2/2009 1:56 AM | | Re: this idiot believes we never went to the moon | Quote |
righto delta-V it is.
and good a thing
just like we know that the crater is just in the shadow....otherwise we might think it just wasn't there!
Quick thinking that luckily we find the real reason why the crators are so hard to see...they're in the shadows and they're little...even smaller than the astronaut's footprints that are plastered everywhere...
wow that explains everything. Thank you. Now I am packing...I know we'll be headed back that way and I can't wait to be one of the first moon tourists.....just as soon as the stimulus packages restimulate us to have more money....we'll be going back...and the moon won't be hot or cold as you pointed out, so I don't have to worry about that either....great, Quoting: Anonymous Coward 716019
I'm almost sorry for being honest here. When I first looked at the conditions, I realized there was no reason to expect to see a crater at all. I was quite willing to accept that there would be little to no visible mark under the LM. Imagine my surprise when, looking through some unrelated Apollo surface photographs, I saw something that could only be an actual divot under the LM!
Even then I wasn't sure. It could have been a coincidental crater. So I went through several photographs from different angles...and was able to satisfy myself that there is, indeed, a clear depression under some of the engine bells.
But this should not detract from the original points. To wit; YES, dust was blown away by the engine thrust. No-one on the Apollo side disagrees with that. (And if Jarrah or whatever thinks NASA says there was no dust...he either hasn't done his research, or he is lying.)
AND, there is no reason for a deep, smoking blast crater. As has been pointed out a few times already, a Harrier, of similar weight, hovering in Earth's gravity, doesn't leave a crater.
The fault lies in the naive expectation, not in the world that fails to adhere to an untested and uncalculated gut assumption. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 439828
7/2/2009 1:57 AM | | Re: this idiot believes we never went to the moon | Quote |
Good job not reading what I said. The camera was not in direct contact with the lunar surface, so there was no way for heat to transfer directly to it from the surface - there's no convective heating in a vacuum and since the cameras were designed to be shiny and reflective, radiative transfers of heat from the sun were largely reflected and irradiated back out into space. Good job showing you know nothing about how heat transfer works in a vacuum. By your logic, the interior of ISS should be that of an easy bake oven.
Here is another one for you all, if there is no atmosphere on the moon, light hits the moon in straight lines and also reflects off the moon again in straight lines. An atmosphere diffuses light, so in all of the Apollo photos, where there is shade, there is never seen light and dark patches mixed, in the shading of the astronauts, LM, or surrounding landscape. it is just an all-over union of shading everywhere. Something like that should only ever happen in an environment with an atmosphere that diffuses light rays evenly. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 439828
Also another thing is that because as on the moon where there is no atmosphere to evenly diffuse and mix light. 'All' of the Apollo photos taken out on the moon surface should actually only ever show a kaleidoscope of the colors of the rainbow everywhere, because there is no atmosphere to mix all the colors up from the light rays. |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 711198
7/2/2009 2:06 AM | | Re: this idiot believes we never went to the moon | Quote |
Yes yes and ironsight for sure....thanks for the failed photos...glad they weren't as good as we thougnt...just makes 'em human after all. But still
Astounding dexterity and amazing job! These astronauts were able to manually change the settings using paddles and an ironsight...wow...and all while also performing all those crafty experiments they did Quoting: Anonymous Coward 716019
Yes...three focus settings, and three exposure settings, and they left the shutter alone. The exposure combinations had been worked out on the ground and were printed on the top of the film magazines in case they forgot. The Ektachrome 101 didn't have a lot of exposure latitude (not like, say, that Fuji 1600 stuff) but with darkroom "pushing" there was still a good bit of leeway. If you look through one of the various online galleries of Apollo surface photographs you can see a good range of exposures; including quite a few that got outside the useful range.
I used to shoot on an all-manual SLR myself. It did have a through-the-lens light meter, but it was still up to me to work out the settings. I was shooting under artificial light, and also shooting a lot of miniatures...meaning extreme close-up, and stopped-down shutters to increase the depth of field.
The astronauts had a much easier time of it. With lots of light you get lots of depth of field. And with a wide lens you have an easier time getting at least some of the subject into the frame.
Anyone who characterizes the photographs as "perfect," though, is ignorant. Even willfully ignorant. Pretty much all of them have various flaws in composition (as well as dirty lenses, less-than-perfect exposure, and so forth).
such as roaring around on the moon rover kicking up large rooster tails of dust that arced through the air in sharp falls as they raced around the area. Guess the rover had a lot more thrust and the arcs of dust fell in the exact shapes they would have taken had there actually been air for the dust to hit against....but as you point out, there wasn't....no air and thus no thrust. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 716019
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
You don't know what "thrust" is, do you? Do you even know how a rocket works? |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 711198
7/2/2009 2:09 AM | | Re: this idiot believes we never went to the moon | Quote |
Also another thing is that because as on the moon where there is no atmosphere to evenly diffuse and mix light. 'All' of the Apollo photos taken out on the moon surface should actually only ever show a kaleidoscope of the colors of the rainbow everywhere, because there is no atmosphere to mix all the colors up from the light rays. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 439828
Whooo! Please tell me someone is saving these; I think we have a worthy contender for the mantle of Moon Man.
Hey, AC; do you want to ask what keeps the vacuum out?
I'm sorry, this is so off it isn't even wrong. What you say bears no resemblance to the physics of light in this universe, nor any other I am capable of imagining. |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 711198
7/2/2009 2:11 AM | | Re: this idiot believes we never went to the moon | Quote |
Here is another one for you all, if there is no atmosphere on the moon, light hits the moon in straight lines and also reflects off the moon again in straight lines. An atmosphere diffuses light, so in all of the Apollo photos, where there is shade, there is never seen light and dark patches mixed, in the shading of the astronauts, LM, or surrounding landscape. it is just an all-over union of shading everywhere. Something like that should only ever happen in an environment with an atmosphere that diffuses light rays evenly. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 439828
So close and yet so far. You actually answered your own question already. Now all you have to do is follow your own reasoning through. |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 711198
7/2/2009 2:22 AM | | Re: this idiot believes we never went to the moon | Quote |
Not in direct contact so not hot. Perfectly understandable...I'll remember that.
The camera itself could never absorb energy or heat in a vacuum due its very camerness ..only the moon could....thank you for your help.
I know nothing and think nothing, but that god willing we WILL see the surface of the moon close up with our very eyes and walk on it with our very own feet soon. Very soon. As soon as there is world peace and we are all safe in our homes....and free, just like we are, a free country with laws the mean we can't be dragged from our beds at night and kept in cells with no charges being filed against us with no recourse to lawyers. Freedom for all. that's right.
The shade is light and dark patches mixed with an over all union....you should be a poet.
And that does explain the awful amount of thrust demonstrated by the lunar rover and the lack of thrust and dust by the LM...because it now has become clearer than if there were no atmosphere and no trip to the moon after all. Dang. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 716019
You keep trying to cast everything in binary. In yes or no answers, in crater or no crater, in hot or not hot. The real world is not a true-or-false question. It is an essay question (or at least, multiple choice.)
The camera, like the astronaut's suits, was designed to have poor thermal transfer with the environment. This is much easier in a vacuum, where there is no convective transfer.
Imagine the camera as inside a thermos bottle. That's pretty close. The vacuum of the lunar environment is the vacuum inside the double-walled thermos flask. The white coating on the camera is like the shiny coating inside the thermos...okay, make that like those cardboard things people stick in their windshields when they have to park in the sun. The cardboard works because if sunlight can't get to the car seat, it can't heat up the car seat (at least, not directly).
It isn't perfect, and neither is a thermos....there's that binary thinking again...but it is good enough to keep the camera from heating up bad enough to fail.
And for that matter; the TV camera had the same problem. Why doesn't Jarrah complain about the TV camera overheating? Is it too technical for him, so he has to talk about film instead? In any case, the TV camera has a big disadvantage; it generates its own heat. Electronics are lossy. Your computer gets hot, and so does a television camera. On the Moon, the camera didn't have any good way to get rid of the heat.
But that wasn't what almost killed it a few times. See, we already talked about the white covering being like the windshield cardboard, right? It blocks the sunlight, so the sunlight doesn't heat up the camera. Well, on the Rover missions, enough dust flew up to coat the camera and make the coating darker. Like a dark suit on a summer day, it got HOT. They had to stop and dust the thing off. Frequently.
But that's probably getting a little too technical for you. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 439828
7/2/2009 2:24 AM | | Re: this idiot believes we never went to the moon | Quote |
Good job not reading what I said. The camera was not in direct contact with the lunar surface, so there was no way for heat to transfer directly to it from the surface - there's no convective heating in a vacuum and since the cameras were designed to be shiny and reflective, radiative transfers of heat from the sun were largely reflected and irradiated back out into space. Good job showing you know nothing about how heat transfer works in a vacuum. By your logic, the interior of ISS should be that of an easy bake oven.
Here is another one for you all, if there is no atmosphere on the moon, light hits the moon in straight lines and also reflects off the moon again in straight lines. An atmosphere diffuses light, so in all of the Apollo photos, where there is shade, there is never seen light and dark patches mixed, in the shading of the astronauts, LM, or surrounding landscape. it is just an all-over union of shading everywhere. Something like that should only ever happen in an environment with an atmosphere that diffuses light rays evenly.
Also another thing is that because as on the moon where there is no atmosphere to evenly diffuse and mix light. 'All' of the Apollo photos taken out on the moon surface should actually only ever show a kaleidoscope of the colors of the rainbow everywhere, because there is no atmosphere to mix all the colors up from the light rays. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 439828
Newton passed sunlight through a glass prism to separate the colors into a rainbow spectrum.
The different vibrating frequency colors of light combine and mix in the Earth's atmosphere to produced white light. On the moon these different vibrating frequencies of different colors would not diffuse and mix, therefore producing a kaleidoscope of the colors of the rainbow everywhere on the moon's surface. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 439828
7/2/2009 2:44 AM | | Re: this idiot believes we never went to the moon | Quote |
someone has previously pointed out that the space shuttles have never actually ever reached the vacuum of space, but rather always have some form of atmosphere around the ship, and that the ships are in a slow free-fall back to the earth.
Another physics 101 failure. ALL satellites, I repeat, ALL satellites are in free fall around the earth. The amount of atmosphere present at even the lowest shuttle orbits is about 6 molecules per cubic centimeter; it might as well be nothing for the purpose of "pushing off" something. The reason the shuttle is able to maneuver is solely because of Newtonian mechanics. It's also how all deep space probes maneuver. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 715991
The whole "space flight" is an "atmosphere flight". The word "space flight" is a lie, because until now not one single human has been in space.
[link to www.geschichteinchronologie.ch] |
| Ossie bloke 
User ID: 715339
7/2/2009 5:00 AM
 | | Re: this idiot believes we never went to the moon | Quote |
A couple weeks ago, the Australian breakfast TV show Sunrise had their technology guy explain that the moon only has a thin layer of dust and under that dust is hard rock. He said the LM's blast only removed that thin layer of dust and what we see under the LM is hard rock, but when I look in Wikipedia it says the moon has a thick layer of dust and rocks mixed together (regolith).
One would think that he or his script writers would check Wikipedia and a few other sources. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 716314
7/2/2009 5:41 AM | | Re: this idiot believes we never went to the moon | Quote |
I wouldn't trust any project that is funded by gov't. money. I wonder where all those dollars for the fake moon landing went? Maybe further lining the pockets of the bankers or building underground installations. "Cap and trade" reminds me of the moon landing. If you talk to agendaless scientists, they'll most likely tell you Global Warming is a money generating pipe dream.
The Illuminati love to use scientific programs as fundraising excuses to steal money from hardworking people. It is basically legal theft. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 713861
7/2/2009 6:44 AM | | Re: this idiot believes we never went to the moon | Quote |
c'mon everyone knows the moon is made of cheese and could never support the weight of a lander even in low gravity. |
| Skeptic the First
User ID: 716362
7/2/2009 6:49 AM | | Re: this idiot believes we never went to the moon | Quote |
Of course...because the fusion stage of a thermonuclear weapon is magical, so it can reshape the mineral content of a sample so it looks like it formed and cooled over tens of thousands of years in a completely arid environment... Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 711198
First, nuclear fusion is indeed quite "magical" in the layman's sense. Creating heavier elements from lighter ones is no small matter, and ultimately made life possible.
Second, you greatly underestimate the craftiness of Nazi scientists working for the military-industrial-intelligence complex. They have access to thermonuclear explosion sites both before and after, and hence can set up experiments to create materials of various types. In layman's terms, a Nazi scientist sees a thermonuclear weapon as a convenient Easy-Bake oven.
Third, a rock doesn't "look like" it has been formed billions of years ago. Instead, geologists apply various tests to make such estimates. Such tests have obviously not taken into account the possibility of human-made thermonuclear explosions, or Nazi experiments.
Fourth, NASA openly boasts of its skill at designing "lunar simulant":
[link to science.nasa.gov]
---
MSFC is developing three new simulants. Two will represent mare and polar highlands regions. A third will represent the glassy, sharp, jagged edges of regolith that test the best of hardware and humans. But matching every location on the Moon would require large numbers of small, unique, expensive batches.
"Instead, we will develop root simulants and manufacture specific simulants from these, but also enable investigators to enhance the products as needed," McLemore added. "I liken this process to baking a cake: depending on the type of cake you want, you need certain ingredients for it to come out right and taste right. Getting the recipe right whether for a cake or lunar simulants is critical."
For example, the new mare simulant will be enriched with ilmenite, a crystalline iron-titanium oxide.
--- |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 716321
7/2/2009 6:55 AM | | Re: this idiot believes we never went to the moon | Quote |
cameras were designed to be shiny and reflective, radiative transfers of heat from the sun were largely reflected and irradiated back out into space. Good job showing you know nothing about how heat transfer works in a vacuum. By your logic, the interior of ISS should be that of an easy bake oven. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 715991
Isn't that pretty much exactly the same as the theory of "Runaway Global Warming"? How can a bit of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere make the planet get hotter and hotter until it burns up? Where does the heat come from? |
| Skeptic the First
User ID: 716362
7/2/2009 6:57 AM | | Re: this idiot believes we never went to the moon | Quote |
The Illuminati love to use scientific programs as fundraising excuses to steal money from hardworking people. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 716314
Government "science" is simply another branch of the military-industrial-intelligence complex. |
| Bo-salma
User ID: 716366
7/2/2009 6:59 AM | | Re: this idiot believes we never went to the moon | Quote |
some times i said no body wanna spend msme milliars to lie on the ppl !!!
so would nasa do that ?? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 634208
7/2/2009 9:29 AM | | Re: this idiot believes we never went to the moon | Quote |
The different vibrating frequency colors of light combine and mix in the Earth's atmosphere to produced white light. On the moon these different vibrating frequencies of different colors would not diffuse and mix, therefore producing a kaleidoscope of the colors of the rainbow everywhere on the moon's surface. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 439828
If that were the case (sunlight comes in combined form, it's not a rainbow), the moon should look like a giant psychadelic rainbow in the sky. The atmosphere does not "undo" rainbows. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 634208
7/2/2009 9:31 AM | | Re: this idiot believes we never went to the moon | Quote |
The whole "space flight" is an "atmosphere flight". Quoting: Anonymous Coward 439828
Wrong. The shuttle flies well above the internationally defined border of space. The "atmosphere" present there is only noticeable as gradual orbital drag, but at the altitude of hubble it's so non-existent that hubble has been able to maintain orbit without a reboost for many years. |
| | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | |
|
