Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,614 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 396,171
Pageviews Today: 627,944Threads Today: 261Posts Today: 4,462
10:42 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Restored Moon Landing Apollo image

 
LHP598

User ID: 77166529
United States
02/12/2019 07:27 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Restored Moon Landing Apollo image
1) If you think that Shadow Rock is covered in dust then that's just fine, but don't expect anyone else to LOL.

2) I'm assuming nothing, merely stating that if moonquakes shake off the dust it has to land on the ground and there is no evidence of that.

3) None of the dust free rocks show any signs of landing at any speed, there are no scars or craters in the dust.

4) No, I mean there is no logical solution except for earth weathering. You agree, because you can't explain it any other way either.

It's funny, you can see the 'garvity' of the dust free rocks but are resisting it because it completely destroys the Apollo stories and you know it. It's the evidence you hoped would never arrive: total proof of the fake.

Enjoy! Remember the truth is not good or bad, it's just the truth and it's not going to change however hard we wish it would. I too was once a believer just like you.
 Quoting: Drone#6

No, there may be other logical solutions that we don't know about. You've not proven the rocks are dust free. You've not proven they should have large amounts of dust.
 Quoting: LHP598


Other logical solutions? No, the dust had to go somewhere, it's not surrounding the rock, it's not on the rock but the rock is surrounded by a sea of dust. This is recent WEATHERING.

NASA's photos themselves prove the rocks are dust free. Here's a dust free rock: Shadow Rock from Apollo 16, embedded in the ground dust but with no crater or marks to show how it go there:

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov (secure)]

With Astronaut checking out the shadow
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov (secure)]

With stick and then also an astronaut leaning up against it (note: dust free!)
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov (secure)]
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov (secure)]

It is IMPOSSIBLE for that rock to have been photographed on the moon as it would be covered with millions of years worth of dust.
 Quoting: Drone#6

Cut out part of my post you didn't like? Another possibility is the theory of where the dust came from is wrong and we shouldn't expect so much dust. Another poster said there were two theories. They haven't proven either one and it is possible neither are correct.


There are these
but they've been ignored before




 Quoting: LHP598


They haven't been ignored, they are simply irrelevant. Here are the inclination and heading angles of take off by NASA:
[link to history.nasa.gov (secure)]

They take the Apollo mission right into the worst parts of the Van Allen belts for hours and even if it was a 90 degree polar orbit they would still smash into the sides of the Van Allen doughnut as they orbited out.

For an agency to claim they put three adults in a small bremsstrahling enhancing tin can through the Van Allen radiation belts for nearly 12 hours, left them in open space for 8 days and spent 2 of those days on the radioactive lunar surface and then return with film without a trace of fogging is pathetic, especially when they claim this over some 6 trips.
 Quoting: Drone#6

The data shows they were on an inclined orbit and they went through the thinner outer edges of the belts just like the videos posted.

Last Edited by LHP598 on 02/12/2019 07:38 AM
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law
LHP598

User ID: 77166529
United States
02/12/2019 07:36 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Restored Moon Landing Apollo image
they must have had enough fuel to launch from the lunar surface to get back into orbit, which must have been considerable and the nozzle on the rocket motor would quite clearly concentrate the thrust, why wouldn't you concentrate the thrust?
 Quoting: Aladdin Spain


An interesting point you make in terms of not just weight but weight distribution.

As they landed the LEM would have become more and more top heavy making it more and more unstable the more fuel was burned. Whether this was predicted is uncertain but quite possible: but it was NEVER tested.
 Quoting: Drone#6

that is a lie. It was tested unmanned in Earth orbit on Apollo 5 and manned in Earth orbit on Apollo 9 and again manned in lunar orbit on Apollo 10

The LEM design was fundamentally unstable, a single point thrust with limited angle control and 16 tons balanced on top. There was no computer simulation like we have today, Neil crashed every single earth mockup and it was never tested landing (or ascending!) in lunar gravity.
 Quoting: Drone#6

Another lie. Neil crashed ONCE and due to an unrelated mechanical issue and had multiple successful flights. Apollo 10 tested the separation of descent and ascent stages and tested the ascent motor. Apollo 11 was the final test.

Neil's problem was the limited thrust vectoring torque for a 16 ton inertial load, once it started to rotate it was very difficult - and generally too late anywhere near the ground - to correct. That's why Neil ejected from the test rig.
 Quoting: Drone#6

Another lie. The accident investigation board found that the fuel for the vehicle's attitude control thrusters had run out and that high winds were a major factor

Yet the LEM's very first test was Neil's triumphant landing in MGM Borehamwood, England, on Stanley Kubricks moon set with the dust free rocks with a strangely silent engine (technically known as a soundstage gantry crane winch).
 Quoting: Drone#6

Another lie

Interestingly the lunar scenes in the UFO series and 2001 A Space Odyssey all show clean rocks too, because it never occurred to anyone that the dust should be coating EVERYTHING like a blanket of snow.

Oops!
 Quoting: Drone#6

2001 also showed Earth gravity and billowing dust. Hilarious that you buy into the wet dream that Kubrick was involved.
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law
Drone#6

User ID: 27738044
United Kingdom
02/12/2019 07:38 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Restored Moon Landing Apollo image
Here, however, is my challenge to you.

1. My generation built a moon rocket with F-1 engines. your pussy generation still cannot duplicate that engine. Show me the data it did not go to the moon. Show me. Please.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77285615


If you knew anything about the major deficiencies of the F-1 engine's you'd know why NASA dumped them.

Why on earth would NASA, Rocketdyne or anyone want to duplicate such a hopeless, obsolete design?

Seriously you're making yourself look foolish here. The F-1 was designed in 1962 and made from thinwall tubes brazed together, the last engine anyone made that way. This design restricted maximum combustion chamber pressure, gave the turbo pump huge pumping loss work and overall was a rather poor example of an open cycle engine. They even put in straight-through injectors which is why it burned most of it's fuel uselessly behind the rocket.

The 1969 soviet NK-33 was so far ahead the exact same design is sold today by Russia to the Americans in the RD-180 etc. Think about that for a while.

If anyone was going to re-build Saturn V they'd use decent motors like the RD-180 with a decent specific impulse, not the hopeless F-1 flamethrowers that NASA dumped.

Jeez.
bob spelled backwards
User ID: 52380247
United States
02/12/2019 07:41 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Restored Moon Landing Apollo image
the rock shadows point forward while the landing craft shadow points the opposite direction. There must be two suns when you're on the moon.
Drone#6

User ID: 27738044
United Kingdom
02/12/2019 07:46 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Restored Moon Landing Apollo image
that is a lie. It was tested unmanned in Earth orbit on Apollo 5 and manned in Earth orbit on Apollo 9 and again manned in lunar orbit on Apollo 10

Another lie. Neil crashed ONCE and due to an unrelated mechanical issue and had multiple successful flights. Apollo 10 tested the separation of descent and ascent stages and tested the ascent motor. Apollo 11 was the final test.

Another lie. The accident investigation board found that the fuel for the vehicle's attitude control thrusters had run out and that high winds were a major factor

Another lie
 Quoting: LHP598


Tell us: When was the LEM first landed on the moon, and when was it first taken off from the moon?

Was it Apollo 11? Yes it was!

ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING is the test, the first test of the LEM was Neil Armstrong in 1969, please don't pretend that it could be properly tested without landing it and taking it off again (after a couple of days baking on one side and freezing on the other).

I suspect you don't work in a field that involves much testing. It's a shame you have resorted to accusations here, you seemed quite civilised in your other replies.
I think the Moon Rock Dust Problem has you rattled.
Dr. Deplorable AstromutModerator
Senior Forum Moderator

02/12/2019 07:56 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Restored Moon Landing Apollo image
that is a lie. It was tested unmanned in Earth orbit on Apollo 5 and manned in Earth orbit on Apollo 9 and again manned in lunar orbit on Apollo 10

Another lie. Neil crashed ONCE and due to an unrelated mechanical issue and had multiple successful flights. Apollo 10 tested the separation of descent and ascent stages and tested the ascent motor. Apollo 11 was the final test.

Another lie. The accident investigation board found that the fuel for the vehicle's attitude control thrusters had run out and that high winds were a major factor

Another lie
 Quoting: LHP598


Tell us: When was the LEM first landed on the moon, and when was it first taken off from the moon?

Was it Apollo 11? Yes it was!

ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING is the test, the first test of the LEM was Neil Armstrong in 1969, please don't pretend that it could be properly tested without landing it and taking it off again
 Quoting: Drone#6

Well we've already established that you're a dishonest liar, so it should come as absolutely no surprise that you're now dishonest about what a test is and the fact that the lunar module was tested in space 3 times before it ever landed on the moon.
astrobanner2
Dr. Deplorable AstromutModerator
Senior Forum Moderator

02/12/2019 08:14 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Restored Moon Landing Apollo image
...


What were you right about? The times and distances I gave are accurate according to NASA,
 Quoting: Drone#6


No, they are not.
 Quoting: Dr. Deplorable Astromut


If you won't even acknowledge NASA's own Apollo 11 Flight Journal there's no much more to be said about the Van Allen belts is there?

Funny how none of the film is fogged either, everything looks like they never even left the earth at all.
 Quoting: Drone#6

Funny how you keep trying to change the subject after lying about what the flight journal shows. I just quoted to you from the flight journal in multiple spots where it exactly confirms what I said about the trajectory. Not only did I "acknowledge" it, I showed that it confirmed what I said!
Sorry, nothing in your links indicates that my trajectory info is wrong. In fact your first link precedes the point in time I mentioned, 17:17 UT on the 16th = 003:45:00 ground elapsed time in the mission. They didn't do a direct ascent to TLI, TLI came hours after the launch. Now, let's look at the next page:
"003:53:27 McCandless: Roger, we copy.
Long comm break.
That was Neil Armstrong with that report.
It is at about this point that a crewman, probably Neil given that he has just mentioned the view, takes two photographs of Earth half obscured by the structure of the Lunar Module.
...
The second of these images shows enough of Earth's globe that a measurement can be taken to determine the distance to Earth at that moment. The calculation yields a value of about 18,700 km or 10,100 nautical miles."
[link to history.nasa.gov (secure)]

Whoops! What's that? I was right! And the website YOU referenced PROVES it. A short while later on in the transcript, the Public Affairs Officer reads off the current mission altitude confirming me right again:

"This is Apollo Control at 4 hours, 4 minutes. Apollo 11's velocity now is 17,014 feet per second [5,186 m/s]. Its distance from Earth, 11,753 nautical miles [21,767 km]."

Now you can admit I was right about the trajectory.
 Quoting: Dr. Deplorable Astromut

I see now that I'm not dealing with an honest person.
 Quoting: Dr. Deplorable Astromut


Drone is fully aware that his claims about the trajectory are dead wrong even according to his own source. Drone is a dishonest lying troll.
astrobanner2
Low Earth Orbit

User ID: 76809044
United States
02/12/2019 08:20 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Restored Moon Landing Apollo image
how man times have you seen a Harrier land in a corn field.
Halcyon Dayz, FCD

User ID: 76260827
Netherlands
02/12/2019 09:05 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Restored Moon Landing Apollo image
They take the Apollo mission right into the worst parts of the Van Allen belts for hours and even if it was a 90 degree polar orbit they would still smash into the sides of the Van Allen doughnut as they orbited out.

For an agency to claim they put three adults in a small bremsstrahling enhancing tin can through the Van Allen radiation belts for nearly 12 hours, left them in open space for 8 days and spent 2 of those days on the radioactive lunar surface and then return with film without a trace of fogging is pathetic, especially when they claim this over some 6 trips.
 Quoting: Drone#6

There you go again lying your pretty little head off.

Compulsive liar it is then.


The LEM design was fundamentally unstable, a single point thrust with limited angle control and 16 tons balanced on top.
 Quoting: Drone#6

Now find us A SINGLE AEROSPACE ENGINEER who will validate your ASSesment.

There was no computer simulation like we have today,
 Quoting: Drone#6

So what?

Neil crashed every single earth mockup and
 Quoting: Drone#6

And there you go lying again.
WTF is wrong with you?

it was never tested landing (or ascending!) in lunar gravity.
 Quoting: Drone#6

For $50, Philbis, WHAT IS APOLLO 10?

Yet the LEM's very first test was Neil's triumphant landing in MGM Borehamwood, England, on Stanley Kubricks moon set with the dust free rocks with a strangely silent engine (technically known as a soundstage gantry crane winch).
 Quoting: Drone#6

Presumes facts not in evidence.

Interestingly the lunar scenes in the UFO series and 2001 A Space Odyssey all show clean rocks too, because it never occurred to anyone that the dust should be coating EVERYTHING like a blanket of snow.
 Quoting: Drone#6

Ever heard of Dr. Gold, or A.C. Clarke, for that matter?


The reason F-35's and Harriers don't dig craters is because they take off from thick steel deck plates and concrete runways.
 Quoting: Drone#6

You're either enormously disinformed, or an obsessive-compulsive liar.
 Quoting: Halcyon Dayz, FCD

Irrelevant, you are attacking me in frustration because you can't break my logic. But thanks for letting me know.
 Quoting: Drone#6

What logic?
Anyhoo, logic is useless when not using facts.
Only actual facts can be used in evidence.
And since you have a reality-deficit even being the smartest person in the galaxy will not lead you to the truth.

No ideas about how that dust got removed from those 'moon' rocks and where it went?
As you can't think of any you have just admitted that the photographed scenes are all on earth.

Congratulations! Your first step toward the truth, embrace it!
 Quoting: Drone#6

First you need to prove that there should be visible dust.
Unless you do your claim isn't a fact, and only facts can be used in evidence.

Stop confabulating and study the facts.
Then apply that magnificent brain of yours and discover the truth.

I doubt you ever will though, you can't even figure out the purpose of VTOL aircraft.
book


how man times have you seen a Harrier land in a corn field.
 Quoting: Low Earth Orbit

The purpose of VTOL fighting aircraft in a total war scenario is that you don't have to use stationary facilities for servicing.
After all those facilities are the first to get nuked.

And yes I've seen Harriers land in cornfields.
Though remote roads and meadows are preferred.
book
Reaching for the sky makes you taller.

Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans.
Agent Smith 2014  (OP)

User ID: 44753432
United Kingdom
02/12/2019 10:04 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Restored Moon Landing Apollo image
All restored images.

[link to u.cubeupload.com]
[link to u.cubeupload.com]
[link to u.cubeupload.com]
[link to u.cubeupload.com]
[link to u.cubeupload.com]
[link to u.cubeupload.com]
[link to u.cubeupload.com]
[link to u.cubeupload.com]
[link to u.cubeupload.com]
[link to u.cubeupload.com]
[link to u.cubeupload.com]
[link to u.cubeupload.com]
[link to u.cubeupload.com]
Life is a dream and we are the imagination of ourselves.
marlborolightsplease

User ID: 37354603
United States
02/12/2019 10:12 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Restored Moon Landing Apollo image
bump
Agent Smith 2014  (OP)

User ID: 44753432
United Kingdom
02/12/2019 10:22 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Restored Moon Landing Apollo image
I shall make a few more, there's so many good shots.
Life is a dream and we are the imagination of ourselves.
Drone#6

User ID: 27738044
United Kingdom
02/12/2019 11:02 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Restored Moon Landing Apollo image
a few points...

Half of the spacecraft in space is always in shadow. The sun side heats up while the shadow side loses heat....thus the "barbecue roll" to even out the temperatures.. It was SOP on all lunar missions. The temps of objects don't go from cold to hot and back instantly, takes some time for the surfaces to warm and cool in a vaccuum.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 4448622


This only applies to the journey there and back, for 2 or 3 days the LEM then sits baking on the surface with one side to the full sun and the other in super-freezing conditions.

No "barbecue roll" for the LEM, then afterwards they expect it to work flawlessly, all the explosive bolts to fire etc. This aspect - along with landing and taking off from the moon were first tested with Buzz and Neil as guinea pigs.

Interestingly there seems to be no 'preferred direction' to sit the LEM down in the sun which of course there should be.
Drone#6

User ID: 27738044
United Kingdom
02/12/2019 11:17 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Restored Moon Landing Apollo image
They take the Apollo mission right into the worst parts of the Van Allen belts for hours and even if it was a 90 degree polar orbit they would still smash into the sides of the Van Allen doughnut as they orbited out.

For an agency to claim they put three adults in a small bremsstrahling enhancing tin can through the Van Allen radiation belts for nearly 12 hours, left them in open space for 8 days and spent 2 of those days on the radioactive lunar surface and then return with film without a trace of fogging is pathetic, especially when they claim this over some 6 trips.
 Quoting: Drone#6

There you go again lying your pretty little head off.

Compulsive liar it is then.
 Quoting: Halcyon Dayz, FCD


Wow you are rattled now! Calm down, relax, what's with the insults? Do I frighten you that much?
Perhaps you can explain where any 'lie' is?

The LEM design was fundamentally unstable, a single point thrust with limited angle control and 16 tons balanced on top.
 Quoting: Drone#6

Now find us A SINGLE AEROSPACE ENGINEER who will validate your ASSesment.
 Quoting: Halcyon Dayz, FCD


ASSesment? How old are you, 12?

You think a heavy object balanced on a single point at the base is stable? In what universe? You appear to be really angry about something, anything we can do to help?

NASA / Grumman fitted a stabilisation system to the LEM for this very reason of instability, it was possibly the world's first such system, you can find it here:

[link to history.nasa.gov (secure)]

I'm puzzled why you didn't know this.

I think you don't know much at all about Apollo except your faith in NASA and their nazi leader Von Braun whose legacy is for some reason important to preserve for some folks.

Do you know why you need to defend Von Braun's NASA? Can you tell us?
Drone#6

User ID: 27738044
United Kingdom
02/12/2019 11:20 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Restored Moon Landing Apollo image
No need to double check, the numbers are from NASA's own logs:
Outward
2:44 in [link to history.nasa.gov (secure)]
8:30 in [link to history.nasa.gov (secure)]
5.75hrs, 3.8 orbits

Inward
189:28 [link to history.nasa.gov (secure)]
194:53 [link to history.nasa.gov (secure)]
5.5 hours, unknown orbits.

Total in + out time = 5.75 + 5.5 = 11.25 hours.
 Quoting: Drone#6


Drone is fully aware that his claims about the trajectory are dead wrong even according to his own source. Drone is a dishonest lying troll.
 Quoting: Dr. Deplorable Astromut


Bizarre.

The distances and times are clearly set out in the NASA Journal links I provided.

Exactly what is wrong with those numbers?

Have you worked out why none of the moon rocks have any dust on them yet?
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 44753432
United Kingdom
02/12/2019 11:48 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Restored Moon Landing Apollo image
[link to u.cubeupload.com]
[link to u.cubeupload.com]
[link to u.cubeupload.com]
[link to u.cubeupload.com]
[link to u.cubeupload.com]
[link to u.cubeupload.com]
[link to u.cubeupload.com]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 77363728
Sweden
02/12/2019 11:49 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Restored Moon Landing Apollo image
I just found this.


[link to tinypic.com]
Dr. Deplorable AstromutModerator
Senior Forum Moderator

02/12/2019 12:09 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Restored Moon Landing Apollo image
...


Brief periods of time? If you end the Van Allen belts at 10,000 miles they spent nearly 12 hours of the flight in total 'briefly' flying through them.

But that's just according to NASA's Apollo 11 Flight Journal that gives time and distance logs.
 Quoting: Drone#6


Hmm, you're going to need to double check your numbers there. They crossed 10,000 miles (~22,460 km from earth's center) by about 17:17 UT on July 16 according to JPL's data. That's less than an hour after TLI. This page agrees:
[link to web.archive.org (secure)]
Likewise, this image shows the trajectory in 2d overlaid on a diagram of the belts, with red markers at 10 minute increments:
[link to web.archive.org (secure)]
 Quoting: Dr. Deplorable Astromut


No need to double check, the numbers are from NASA's own logs:
Outward
2:44 in [link to history.nasa.gov (secure)]
8:30 in [link to history.nasa.gov (secure)]
5.75hrs, 3.8 orbits

Inward
189:28 [link to history.nasa.gov (secure)]
194:53 [link to history.nasa.gov (secure)]
5.5 hours, unknown orbits.

Total in + out time = 5.75 + 5.5 = 11.25 hours.
 Quoting: Drone#6


Sorry, nothing in your links indicates that my trajectory info is wrong. In fact your first link precedes the point in time I mentioned, 17:17 UT on the 16th = 003:45:00 ground elapsed time in the mission. They didn't do a direct ascent to TLI, TLI came hours after the launch. Now, let's look at the next page:
"003:53:27 McCandless: Roger, we copy.
Long comm break.
That was Neil Armstrong with that report.
It is at about this point that a crewman, probably Neil given that he has just mentioned the view, takes two photographs of Earth half obscured by the structure of the Lunar Module.
...
The second of these images shows enough of Earth's globe that a measurement can be taken to determine the distance to Earth at that moment. The calculation yields a value of about 18,700 km or 10,100 nautical miles."
[link to history.nasa.gov (secure)]

Whoops! What's that? I was right! And the website YOU referenced PROVES it. A short while later on in the transcript, the Public Affairs Officer reads off the current mission altitude confirming me right again:

"This is Apollo Control at 4 hours, 4 minutes. Apollo 11's velocity now is 17,014 feet per second [5,186 m/s]. Its distance from Earth, 11,753 nautical miles [21,767 km]."

Now you can admit I was right about the trajectory.
 Quoting: Dr. Deplorable Astromut


Stop fucking deleting the quotes from the journal which validate the distances and trajectory I gave. They're right fucking there you lying fucking troll.
astrobanner2
kaibosh

User ID: 76796351
Canada
02/12/2019 12:47 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Restored Moon Landing Apollo image
The only regolith recovered from the Moon's surface was done by a Russian probe. The United States paid the equivalent of Trillions of dollars through trade deals to get their hands on several small samples of it. All of the 'Moon rocks' were plucked off the ice in Antarctica, Von Braun's team made two major expeditions there in the late 60's to gather them.

It is fucking laughable that people believe the American government would have taken the chance of a failed Apollo 11 mission. There was simply too much at stake. It is especially amusing to hear the crowd who screech about the hundreds of thousands of people who worked on the project. Yup, that's why there were 25,000 ICBM missiles in underground bunkers that could lift off in under a minute, capable of carrying 14 separate warheads.

The biggest joke of all is that everyone is just so damned disinterested in the Moon after all these decades. Never mind the incalculable wealth of research that could be done on the surface, in Lunar orbit. Never mind that wide scale robotic mining and smelting of exotic alloys could be happening on the surface, in orbital tethered space stations, etc, etc, etc. Why hasn't NASA sent ONE SINGLE FUCKING PROBE to land on the Moon in nearly 50 years?! Why haven't they put ONE SINGLE FUCKING SATELLITE in Lunar orbit, with a sweet high def camera?! You can achieve a stable orbit just 7km off the surface. The gravity well of the Moon is many orders of magnitude cheaper to escape than Earth. It is a JOKE to think that Musk, or anyone else, is going to "land on Mars". Pro tip, people: Psssst, you can't land anything on Mars that weighs more than 750kg. Why do you think the last successful wandering probe that such a ridiculous multi-stage theatrical descent program? There isn't enough air to use ablative shielding or a chute to slow down - PERIOD. (The entire atmosphere of Mars would fit perfectly to the brim of an NFL stadium at Earth sea level pressure). There is too much friction from what little atmosphere there is to land 'Lunar Lander' style, like how probes land on the Moon. In order to 'land' on Mars you have to get from Mach 5 to under Mach 1 in less than 90 seconds, and NO TECHNOLOGY EXISTS TO DO THAT.

You know the Soyuz they 'were' using to bring Astronauts up to the ISS? It hasn't changed one single rivet since it brought a couple of Tortoises and some tapeworms around the Moon and back in the late 60's. NOT ONE RIVET. The thrust:lb ratio of fuel has not changed one iota in 60+ years. Neil DeIdiot Tyson should be put up against a wall and shot for going on all the talkshows and even discussing 'asteroid mining' with a straight face. People need to wake up, learn a smattering of the math and physics involved, and realize that we fucked up, we lost our chance, our planet is fucked and doomed, and even the elite know that they are only pampering themselves to a slightly longer survival in the DUMB's. They tried desperately to move their consciousness to a computer, when that didn't work they tried opening portals to Hell to ask for help from them, and now they just shrug and want to ride out the last couple of years with some fine Brandy in an underground bunker while the face of the Earth is sterilized by a dozen different ELE events at the same time.

Keep shoveling more taxpayer dollars at Musk, though.
Dr. Deplorable AstromutModerator
Senior Forum Moderator

02/12/2019 12:56 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Restored Moon Landing Apollo image
The only regolith recovered from the Moon's surface was done by a Russian probe. The United States paid the equivalent of Trillions of dollars through trade deals to get their hands on several small samples of it. All of the 'Moon rocks' were plucked off the ice in Antarctica, Von Braun's team made two major expeditions there in the late 60's to gather them.
 Quoting: kaibosh


Nope. There's no fusion crust on the samples brought back from the moon. I have a small lunar meteorite, the outer layer is a fusion crust. That's why they can't slap the cuffs on me for potentially stealing an Apollo sample.

And yeah, Elon Musk's SpaceX is pretty cool too.
astrofhlanding
The manned version of the Dragon will start flying this year if all goes as planned. I wonder if you'll still be suggesting it's a waste when it's flying, or if you'll slink off and pretend you never said that?
astrobanner2
Drone#6

User ID: 27738044
United Kingdom
02/12/2019 01:53 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Restored Moon Landing Apollo image
Stop fucking deleting the quotes from the journal which validate the distances and trajectory I gave. They're right fucking there you lying fucking troll.
 Quoting: Dr. Deplorable Astromut


No, I don't think you are reading what I say so I'll write it very slowly for you - ok?

I have taken the DISTANCES at the TIMES SPECIFIED directly FROM the Apollo Flight Journals at NASA, and have even WRITTEN down the links and the times so you can go to NASA and read them for YOURSELF.

I don't see anything complicated about that, I'm not even claiming or telling you anything, I'm merely referencing NASA sources.

If you have a problem with my references or sources then please tell me SPECIFICALLY what it is. I hear you shouting about something but without a SPECIFIC reference of any FAULT in the data I supplied it's just noise.


No need to double check, the numbers are from NASA's own logs:
Outward
2:44 in [link to history.nasa.gov (secure)]
8:30 in [link to history.nasa.gov (secure)]
5.75hrs, 3.8 orbits

Inward
189:28 [link to history.nasa.gov (secure)]
194:53 [link to history.nasa.gov (secure)]
5.5 hours, unknown orbits.

Total in + out time = 5.75 + 5.5 = 11.25 hours.
 Quoting: Drone#6


Drone is fully aware that his claims about the trajectory are dead wrong even according to his own source. Drone is a dishonest lying troll.
 Quoting: Dr. Deplorable Astromut


Bizarre.

The distances and times are clearly set out in the NASA Journal links I provided.

Exactly what is wrong with those numbers?

Have you worked out why none of the moon rocks have any dust on them yet?
 Quoting: Drone#6



I have noticed however that you are afraid to discuss the BIG problem in the Lunar photos: the LACK OF DUST.
Have you worked out why none of the moon rocks have any dust on them yet?


As I have proven that all the lunar photos with rocks in are faked here on earth, have you any rebuttal, apology or comment about the faked lunar scenes?

Also maybe you could manage a mature, respectful, coherent reply? Thanks in advance!
Halcyon Dayz, FCD

User ID: 76260827
Netherlands
02/12/2019 01:53 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Restored Moon Landing Apollo image
No "barbecue roll" for the LEM, then afterwards they expect it to work flawlessly, all the explosive bolts to fire etc.
 Quoting: Drone#6

The LM [sic] doesn't have a heatshield, protecting which was the main reason for the BBQ-roll.

Interestingly there seems to be no 'preferred direction' to sit the LEM down in the sun which of course there should be.
 Quoting: Drone#6

No, this is just you being ignorant again.
You land with the Sun in your back.

There you go again lying your pretty little head off.

Compulsive liar it is then.
 Quoting: Halcyon Dayz, FCD

Wow you are rattled now! Calm down, relax, what's with the insults? Do I frighten you that much?
 Quoting: Drone#6

No, you merely piss me off.
You are lying all the time, and accuse people of crimes based on nothing other than stuff you confabulated.
There is something wrong with you, namely the fact that you aren't ashamed of yourself.

Perhaps you can explain where any 'lie' is?
 Quoting: Drone#6

Pretty much every single claim you made was a falsehood.

The LEM design was fundamentally unstable, a single point thrust with limited angle control and 16 tons balanced on top.
 Quoting: Drone#6

Now find us A SINGLE AEROSPACE ENGINEER who will validate your ASSesment.
 Quoting: Halcyon Dayz, FCD

ASSesment? How old are you, 12?
 Quoting: Drone#6

So you haven't found one.
Prolly because such a person would be non-existent.

Do you know why you need to defend Von Braun's NASA? Can you tell us?
 Quoting: Drone#6

Because there are liars like you around who hate reality and truth.
You can't learn from history if you don't know history, or worst, if you know it wrong.

"Von Braun's NASA"? LOL.
WvB only joined NASA two years after it was established.
The highest he ever got was Deputy Associate Administrator.
book
Reaching for the sky makes you taller.

Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans.
Drone#6

User ID: 27738044
United Kingdom
02/12/2019 01:55 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Restored Moon Landing Apollo image
The only regolith recovered from the Moon's surface was done by a Russian probe. The United States paid the equivalent of Trillions of dollars through trade deals to get their hands on several small samples of it. All of the 'Moon rocks' were plucked off the ice in Antarctica, Von Braun's team made two major expeditions there in the late 60's to gather them.
 Quoting: kaibosh


Nope. There's no fusion crust on the samples brought back from the moon. I have a small lunar meteorite, the outer layer is a fusion crust.
 Quoting: Dr. Deplorable Astromut


A fusion crust eh? I wonder if a multi billion dollar show headed up by the wonderful ex-nazi Von Braun could have figured out how to remove those?

BTW why are you defending the ex-nazi Von Braun's legacy so fiercely - are you perhaps related?
kaibosh

User ID: 76796351
Canada
02/12/2019 02:00 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Restored Moon Landing Apollo image
Yawn. Oh My Gerd, you're so dreamy Astro. So you are saying that the Russians didn't bring back 'soil' from the Lunar surface? You are saying NASA didn't have two major expeditions to pick up chunks of rock in Antarctica, led by the person in charge of the entire Apollo rocket design? Gee, he was a world class geologist as well?!

The only country to have the balls to question the Moon landings at the time was the Netherlands - you know, the country that ended up being given fossilized wood for a 'Moon rock' by NASA? Oops.

I don't give two greasy fucks what Musk has 'accomplished'. He has never created one single product that has ever made the world a better place, or turned a profit by any metric of any kind. He is a con man - period. The Gigafactories are an empty joke. Everything he does is a joke.

It is a ridiculous and sad farce that NASA doesn't even have a vehicle that can bring people into LEO, and hasn't had one for a long time. They don't want to renew the contract with the Baikonur Cosmodrome, but they won't have the balls to even try putting people aboard the Dragon, or the Ariane, or even the $Billion Lockheed/Boeing monstrosities (which still have a FAR greater failure rate than the Soyuz).

Oh Astro, continue to rain your manna of wisdom down upon us. Who can imagine the skill necessary to plug a telescope into a laptop these days? Wow, you can paste links to meaningless Vic 20 era graphs showing how many Rads the astronots soaked in!!! Yeah, plenty of us 'simple folk' can read them books too, gosh Mr. my head is just a swirlin' with all that DATA you argue with!

If only NASA had the power to deflect the next Taurid fragment that Astro shows deflecting any real conversation on these topics. Bruce Willis would just shrug and stay on the oil rig. "There's nothing left to learn on the Moon". Yup, that one single sentiment alone is all that's necessary to point out the bufoonery of 'NASA'. Nope, nothing could be learned at all.
Drone#6

User ID: 27738044
United Kingdom
02/12/2019 02:21 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Restored Moon Landing Apollo image
The LM [sic] doesn't have a heatshield, protecting which was the main reason for the BBQ-roll.

No, this is just you being ignorant again.
You land with the Sun in your back.
 Quoting: Halcyon Dayz, FCD


So as it didn't have a heatshield they didn't bother testing it in temperature extremes to see if it would still work? No wonder Grissom was worried. I still find it incredible that the LEM was entirely untested for the moon mission's landing, sitting in the sun and take-off.

Well it sounds like at least they got some of the story consistent with the away from sun landings. Their directional stability in the videos is quite amazing given the situation, the technology and the inertial stabilisation of a 16ton box in a vacuum with only thrusters to control it. It looks exactly like it was strapped to a dolly and wheeled along the camera track of one of the big plaster moons they made up at Langley. Not a hint of drift. Like it was on rails.

However on the plus side I did find a giant rock in Apollo 17 thanks to you, it's even better than Shadow Rock in Apollo 16.

[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]

It's there, jutting out of the surrounding damp sand - err I mean 'moon dust', completely free of all signs of dust on top.

It's funny, once you've learned to spot the dust free rocks they get easier to see, I think this a awakening to Apollo's fake photos is starting: this is going to be viral!! Isn't that exciting?
Dr. Deplorable AstromutModerator
Senior Forum Moderator

02/12/2019 02:24 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Restored Moon Landing Apollo image
Yawn. Oh My Gerd, you're so dreamy Astro. So you are saying that the Russians didn't bring back 'soil' from the Lunar surface?
 Quoting: kaibosh

No, I'm saying the US's moon rocks are not just meteorites from the moon. I clearly never said anything about the Russians or what they brought back. Why do you have to try to twist what I clearly stated?
You are saying NASA didn't have two major expeditions to pick up chunks of rock in Antarctica, led by the person in charge of the entire Apollo rocket design?
 Quoting: kaibosh

Did they? Well if they did they didn't find any lunar meteorites. The first lunar meteorite was indeed found in Antarctica, but it wasn't found until 1982. Allan Hills 81005.
[link to agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com (secure)]
Oops. You fucked up. In fact they still do those expeditions even now. What a thought, hunting for meteorites in a pristine location where they've never been disturbed, can't imagine why scientists would want to do that.
The only country to have the balls to question the Moon landings at the time was the Netherlands - you know, the country that ended up being given fossilized wood for a 'Moon rock' by NASA? Oops.
 Quoting: Kaibosh

Except the petrified wood never came from NASA, it came from the state department and there is a question whether it was given as a "moon rock" or whether the person receiving it (Willem Drees) had hearing problems and misinterpreted the gesture.
sad isn't it, lies will always be lies, no matter what price sticker you put on it
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 33917235


Im still on the fence about the hole moon landing deal, but this definitely has me thinking..
 Quoting: Nostril Domus


It should have you thinking about who wrote the story instead; it wasn't given by any astronaut, the Netherlands only received two official moon rocks from NASA, both are accounted for and that museum never received either of them. The piece of petrified wood was given to Drees by US ambassador J Middendorf who got it from some unknown person at the state department, not from Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, and not from NASA. A moon rock was designated as the "goodwill" moon rock and samples WERE given to various nations after Apollo 11, and this was done again after Apollo 17. The moon rock received by the Netherlands from Apollo 11 is at the National Museum of the History of Science and Medicine in Leiden, NOT Amsterdam's Rijksmuseum. The same museum in Leiden also has the sample from Apollo 17.

It should also be noted that when giving out goodwill moonrocks like this, the samples were encased and protected, not just left out in the open like that. Another dead giveaway of the fake nature of the rock. The goodwill rocks were given away in pieces, which are quite small. You can see pictures of the real moon rocks given to the netherlands here:
[link to www.collectspace.com]
And here:
[link to www.collectspace.com]
 Quoting: Dr. Astro

By the way, he had hearing loss bad enough that he stopped attending Labour party meetings three years prior to Apollo 11.
[link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]

In any case, the piece of wood did not come from NASA.
I don't give two greasy fucks what Musk has 'accomplished'.
 Quoting: kaibosh

That's too bad. Then I guess you don't really care about spaceflight.
He has never created one single product that has ever made the world a better place, or turned a profit by any metric of any kind.
 Quoting: Kaibosh

Wrong.
astrof9landingastrofhlandingcrs11astrocrs12landing
The reusable Falcon 9 has driven down the cost of spaceflight dramatically and brought the commercial space launch market back to the US. Combined with the failures of Russia's Proton rocket, SpaceX has basically stolen their business and made the US the number 1 commercial provider of launches anywhere in the world for the first time in a long time.
They don't want to renew the contract with the Baikonur Cosmodrome, but they won't have the balls to even try putting people aboard the Dragon,
 Quoting: Kaibosh

LOL! Yeah, that's going to change, soon. I'll make sure to remind you of it.
Oh Astro, continue to rain your manna of wisdom down upon us. Who can imagine the skill necessary to plug a telescope into a laptop these days?
 Quoting: Kaibosh

Fuck you asshole. Seriously, fuck you. I do a lot more than "plug a telescope into a laptop" and you know it, you piece of shit. You probably couldn't even polar align my scope if your life depended on it, let alone write any of the programs I've created and provided free for GLP. You let me know when you're able to track rockets, satellites, comets and asteroids using software that you wrote yourself.
[link to github.com (secure)]

Wow, you can paste links to meaningless Vic 20 era graphs showing how many Rads the astronots soaked in!!!
 Quoting: Kaibosh

Meaningless? Oh it's very meaningful you stupid fuck, it shows the dose is nowhere near dangerous given Apollo's trajectory, but it would be a very different story on Orion EFT-1's trajectory.

Last Edited by Dr. Deplorable Astromut on 02/12/2019 02:38 PM
astrobanner2
Drone#6

User ID: 27738044
United Kingdom
02/12/2019 02:42 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Restored Moon Landing Apollo image
Oops. You fucked up. In fact they still do those expeditions even now. What a thought, hunting for meteorites in a pristine location where they've never been disturbed, can't imagine why scientists would want to do that.
 Quoting: Dr. Deplorable Astromut


Because they are easier to see?

Meaningless? Oh it's very meaningful you stupid fuck, it shows the dose is nowhere near dangerous given Apollo's trajectory, but it would be a very different story on Orion EFT-1's trajectory.
 Quoting: Dr. Deplorable Astromut


So why don't you tell the Orion team to simply use the magic Apollo trajectory? Fight off the tourettes for a few minutes and go see them. They'd be so grateful. You may even get a medal. Those silly Orion people, all they needed to do was to steer left a bit: radiation problem solved!!

No wonder NASA can't even get a man into orbit.

In the meantime, checkout this dust free rock on Apollo 17, those moon maids have been busy!!

[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]
Dr. Deplorable AstromutModerator
Senior Forum Moderator

02/12/2019 02:56 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Restored Moon Landing Apollo image
So why don't you tell the Orion team to simply use the magic Apollo trajectory?
 Quoting: Drone#6

Ok, obvious lying troll is obvious. You're not as stupid as you're pretending to be. You know full well that the mission objective was to test it in a high radiation environment, you know that the Delta IV Heavy didn't have enough delta-V to put the Orion capsule on a free return lunar trajectory in the first place, I'm not buying the stupid act. You're a fucking troll, stop wasting everyone's time.
astrobanner2
Drone#6

User ID: 27738044
United Kingdom
02/12/2019 03:09 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Restored Moon Landing Apollo image
So why don't you tell the Orion team to simply use the magic Apollo trajectory?
 Quoting: Drone#6


Ok, obvious lying troll is obvious. You're not as stupid as you're pretending to be. You know full well that the mission objective was to test it in a high radiation environment, you know that the Delta IV Heavy didn't have enough delta-V to put the Orion capsule on a free return lunar trajectory in the first place, I'm not buying the stupid act. You're a fucking troll, stop wasting everyone's time.
 Quoting: Dr. Deplorable Astromut


Again you claim I'm lying but with no evidence. If you claim someone is lying when they are not, doesn't that make you the liar? Top-tip: Maybe you should stick to the technical side as the insults don't seem to be working out for you.

Also I'm not pretending to be anything, I'm merely pointing out a few things that you want to remain hidden. Like the dust free moon rocks you are too embarrassed to discuss.


You appear to have no knowledge of the purpose of Orion, which was to go to the moon and was ordered by US presidents among others. Here's one of them doing it:
[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]

He even gives timescales. Today in 2019 they've managed one test flight.

I suggest you watch some of the videos NASA made to get up to speed with the program.

E.g: [link to www.youtube.com (secure)]

They seem to think that the radiation is a problem needing to be solved, all you need to do is to tell them to use the magic Apollo trajectory and then they can get on with all the other stuff they've been avoiding for the past 20 years or so.

Go earn that medla Astro, America needs you!!
And remind them to add dust to the rocks this time..
Dr. Deplorable AstromutModerator
Senior Forum Moderator

02/12/2019 03:23 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Restored Moon Landing Apollo image
So why don't you tell the Orion team to simply use the magic Apollo trajectory?
 Quoting: Drone#6


Ok, obvious lying troll is obvious. You're not as stupid as you're pretending to be. You know full well that the mission objective was to test it in a high radiation environment, you know that the Delta IV Heavy didn't have enough delta-V to put the Orion capsule on a free return lunar trajectory in the first place, I'm not buying the stupid act. You're a fucking troll, stop wasting everyone's time.
 Quoting: Dr. Deplorable Astromut


Again you claim I'm lying but with no evidence.
 Quoting: Drone#6

That's a lie. I provided tons of evidence verifying what I said while you continue to lie about the trajectory and distance information.
Sorry, nothing in your links indicates that my trajectory info is wrong. In fact your first link precedes the point in time I mentioned, 17:17 UT on the 16th = 003:45:00 ground elapsed time in the mission. They didn't do a direct ascent to TLI, TLI came hours after the launch. Now, let's look at the next page:
"003:53:27 McCandless: Roger, we copy.
Long comm break.
That was Neil Armstrong with that report.
It is at about this point that a crewman, probably Neil given that he has just mentioned the view, takes two photographs of Earth half obscured by the structure of the Lunar Module.
...
The second of these images shows enough of Earth's globe that a measurement can be taken to determine the distance to Earth at that moment. The calculation yields a value of about 18,700 km or 10,100 nautical miles."
[link to history.nasa.gov (secure)]

Whoops! What's that? I was right! And the website YOU referenced PROVES it. A short while later on in the transcript, the Public Affairs Officer reads off the current mission altitude confirming me right again:

"This is Apollo Control at 4 hours, 4 minutes. Apollo 11's velocity now is 17,014 feet per second [5,186 m/s]. Its distance from Earth, 11,753 nautical miles [21,767 km]."

Now you can admit I was right about the trajectory.
 Quoting: Dr. Deplorable Astromut

It's all right there, I gave the quotes which actually show how long it took them to cross 10,000 miles altitude straight from the source you pretended to cite. You continue to lie about it because you're a troll.
You appear to have no knowledge of the purpose of Orion, which was to go to the moon and was ordered by US presidents among others.
 Quoting: Fuckingtroll

Fuck off you motherfucking troll bastard. The first test flight was NOT intended to go to the moon AND YOU KNOW IT! You're a goddamn lying troll and that's all there is to it.
astrobanner2