Restored Moon Landing Apollo image

Extraterrestrial tinfoil.

No, it had a support rod across the top to hold it out and the low gravity was not enough to pull out the wrinkles

a plywood floor.

not waving, held out with a fold-out aluminum horizontal rod...wrinkled from being in the canister on the LM landing strut for very many weeks (was installed on the LM landing strut before the LM was attached to the SIVB 3rd stage, then the CSM and LES were installed).

a big floor fan off camera.

They gave you plywood? I had a mixture of salt and nitre

Wrong the moon is not a vacuum.

Fake as fuck...

What always gets me, is why there isn't a blast crater underneath the rocket motor of the LEM? You don't see this underneath any of the modules, not even a disturbed surface, how can this be?





.

Last Edited by Aladdin Spain on 02/11/2019 10:34 PM

the Laws of Physics say there has to be Ejecta when a Force
is applied directly on to it.

The Timex on is right wrist takes a licking and keeps on ticking but there's a huge rip in his moon glove.

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.

As for the "poke a finger through the skin of the craft"...I know they weren't talking about the LM crew cabin pressure vessel. Maybe some of the Mylar sheets on the outside....and nobody from assembly through flight was poking their fingers through that Mylar either.

On Apollo 13, they lost the SM power, so had to rely on batteries in the LM and CM.

what thrust level were they at? Almost empty of fuel in the descent stage? Quite low considering the weight of the LM at that point. Add in the vacuum plume overexpansion of the DPS engine exhaust, and the result is a wide, strong wind, not concentrateded enough to create a crater.

it's an outer glove, not part of the pressure containment. Where is the "huge rip"?

Wow the flag is lit up in that shadow facing opposite the sun. Optics.

No, 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? Otherwise you would be expending and distributing energy unnecessarily.

The Rocket motor reportedly had a 10,000 pound thrust capacity. A Harrier jump jet has a 30,000 pound thrust capacity for comparison. Common sense tells me that there should be a considerable crater underneath those LEMS, especially with that loose and fine lunar dust and rock, if the lunar rover can kick up debris and dust from that lunar surface and the Astronauts boots can make deep imprints, don't you think a rocket motor with 10,000 pounds of thrust should at least show SOME disturbance?





.

I'm a photographer and have a nice studio at home. There are still many film shooters around today. Lots of fine art photographers will use medium format film and have it wet drum scanned at hundreds of megapixels. The food photographers at Martha Stewart's magazine still use film I think. At least they did until recently. Film is still superior for image quality for the most part. The military or science labs may have something really awesome.

Looks like they fit through the hatch just fine...

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

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

$130,000,000,000.00 BILLION DOLLAR$ WORTH OF TIN FOIL, CURTAIN RODS & SCOTCH TAPE: [link to www.flickr.com (secure)]

Heh heh heh

There shouldn't be a crater and the surface is disturbed underneath.
[link to www.clavius.org]

There is no rip. That is the end of the velcro strap used to tighten it up. Even if a rip there are multiple layers and the pressure layer is quite a few layers down.

They were throttled down for landing. If they had landed at 10,000 pounds o thrust the LM would be going up.
And they left the descent stage on the Moon. The ascent stage separated and used a separate rocket with separate fuel tanks to return to orbit.

loose insulative covering over a sturdy shell
here's what it looked like before that insulative covering was put on.
[link to www.nordenretireesclub.org]

You're either enormously disinformed, or an obsessive-compulsive liar.
What's wrong with you?



That would be Luna 15.
The Soviets had a number of successful landers, including 2 sample-return missions.
They swapped a bit of their material with NASA for comparison studies, so some Apollo material is in Moscow, and some Luna samples are in Houston.




Because the jet wasn't powerful enough to excavate one.
It's LM, BTW.


This is incorrect, you can clearly see that the top-layer of dust has been blown away.
[link to www.flickr.com (secure)]


You're aware that the ascend uses a different engine?


AT FULL THROTTLE!

To hover it of course shouldn't produce more thrust than the craft weighs at that point (otherwise it would go up), with most of its landing fuel expended and in the lunar gravity field.
So a small fraction of that 10,000 lbf.


In science we use the Laws of Physics, mathematics, and numbers.
Common sense is often wrong, particularly when not dealing with an Earth-normal environment.


"Common sense is actually nothing more than a deposit of prejudices laid down in the mind prior to the age of eighteen" -- Einstein

back in those days they were using Gold foil.

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.



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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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!

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

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!