Forum menu
Ah he's walked away without comment when people have pointed the gaping flaws in his "theories", thus allowing him to protect his feeble "facts" from scrutiny and preserve the superiority complex.
Another gravity question for the boffins. How did they work out the gravitational forces of the moon prior to landing, to work out the amount of thrust they would need to get off again, if they didn't know exactly what the moon was made of? If the middle was iron, would it have more pull than just rock? Sorry i'm a bit of a physics moron, but i do find it all facinating.
Apollo 10 flew to the moon but didn`t land and orbited close to the surface in lunar module.
The dry run for the next one.
How did they work out the gravitational forces of the moon prior to landing, to work out the amount of thrust they would need to get off again
An adjustable/variable throttle no doubt.
When you drive a car up a hill you don't necessarily know/have the time to work out the 'gravitational forces' involved.
So more wellie = more gas = more power, until you have sufficient power for your requirements.
It's not rocket science ffs.
.
😕
So like some scales or some such on board would of done it then, i see........ good job they didn't borrow Pinches scales or when they went to take off again they'd of been screwed!
An adjustable/variable throttle no doubt.When you drive a car up a hill you don't necessarily know/have the time to work out the 'gravitational forces' involved.
So more wellie = more gas = more power, until you have sufficient power for your requirements.
It' not rocket science ffs.
I asked, as when you look at the footage of it taking off it just blasts off with one big thrusts from the base ejecting the pod thing into space (which doesn't have thrusters on it as such (from the look of it)
But yes i'm seeing what your saying, maybe they could of controlled the primary force needed to send it up.
I do believe they went there, but the footage of Apollo 17 taking off from the moon make Plan 9 from out of Space look like a hollywood blockbuster!
So like some scales or some such on board .......
I'm sorry - you've lost me mate 😕
I was thinking more of an 'accelerator pedal' 💡
Well they don't actually need the initial blast to be that precise. A [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module ]little bit of research[/url] though reveals that 2/3 of the mass was in the descent bit, and that the ascent bit had plenty enough thrust all on it's own. Meanwhile they would have had a very good idea of the actual gravity on the moon from measurements taken when in lunar orbit on previous missions - that or it's perfectly feasible to measure it to the required accuracy from Earth.
ISTM it wasn't actually the getting off the moon which was the tricky bit, but the docking with the command module.
Earnie - i was refering to how they calculted how much force was required to get them up again, to do this they would have to know the 'weight' and atmosphere (if any) so get it right, i don't think a heavy right foot would of cut it, brakes arn't that good in space, and super star pads are just plain shit in zero gravity situations - or mud.
[i]It's not rocket science ffs.[/i]
😆
Most 10 year olds know this stuff. 😯 I did. Some of you are seriously delusional and kidding yourselves on.
Here is a picture for you all to colour in. Later on we will go to the library and learn stuff. 🙄
[img] 
[/img]
......I am sure that if NASA can afford to do all that research into getting someone up there, they can chuck a fair amount of cash at the camera industry and say make us a camera that will work under X/Y/Z conditions.
Well, the cameras were Hasselblads - the best of the best back then (and perhaps now?). The chap who was in charge of supplying the cameras, one of Hasselblad's chief techie guys, was on telly a few years back, very reluctantly pointing out a few flaws in the photographs.
There was one glaringly obvious flaw - there are crosshairs at the corners of the viewing screen (they are printed '+' shapes on the ground glass sceen) and one of these was obscured by an object [i]in the photo[/i], which is impossible. This leads me to believe that if nothing else, the photos were certainly extensively doctored, or worst case, completely faked...
Most 10 year olds know this stuff
My son's nearly 10, i'll ask him how he'd calculate the thrust needed to take off from the moon and not over shoot luner orbit. 🙄
Or maybe instead i'll summon up some patronising quip to put him down instead - yes that'll make me feel better.
Shoefiti - the Moon's gravity is determined by its mass, which can be calculated from information we already have about its orbit around Earth. Or, strictly, the moon's and the Earth's orbit around each other.
And if anyone's interested in why we haven't been back to the moon, it's because it turned out to be incredibly boring. The earth is differentiated into core, mantle, crust and atmosphere, and has enough heat energy within that it is constantly moving, so structurally dynamic and interesting. If you melted the earth down into a homogenous mixture, took only a small fraction of the material and then cooled it down into a single small sphere, you'd get the moon. It's just a cold dead blob, and sits there not doing anything.
Moons like Io and Europa are far more interesting. Look up the findings of the Voyager missons sometime - those are places worth visiting!
There was one glaringly obvious flaw - there are crosshairs at the corners of the viewing screen (they are printed '+' shapes on the ground glass sceen) and one of these was obscured by an object in the photo, which is impossible.
So the alternative is they set up a GIANT glass screen BEHIND the faked moon landings with the + shapes on. The logical extension of that is that during the elaborate and ultra secret events of the faked landing, nobody spotted the difference between a huge screen behind the object and a small one in the camera in front of it? 😛
user-removed: ah yes that old one. For reference the image in question looked like this:
[img] 
[/img]
And this (Magnified and highlighted):
[img] 
[/img]
[size=1](Images from [url= http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html ]www.ufos-aliens.co.uk[/url])[/size]
There are two possibilities here:
- either they faked the pictures in a studio and painstakingly added the crosshairs in manually using Photoshop 1969 edition, presumably because using the readily-available Reseau crosshair backplate accessory was impossible for some reason.
- Or... the object in the picture is simply very brightly lit and overexposed. (Why not get out your own camera and take a picture of a thin wire against a bright light then report back?)
They must have really messed up this one where they only remembered to photoshop'69 in the crosshairs on the darker areas and missed them out on all the bright white bits...
[img] 
[/img]
[size=1](Image from [url= http://www.clavius.org/photoret.html ]clavius.org[/url])[/size]
🙄
WTF ? Someone draws two white circles on a photo of the moon's surface, and you accept that as proof ?
😯
You will let us know what your mate's response to that is?
Yeah will do!
Excellent. I would be particularly interested to know whether two white circles provide more evidence of the Moon landings, than all those previous pictures and films.
Hey ernie, I've just finished reading a book called One Point Safe by Andrew Cockburn - would like to know your take on this author as he's written some interesting books
[url] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Cockburn [/url]
I'm sorry tyger I can't comment, as I don't do 'reading books'. I restrict my reading to news items, articles, pamphlets, etc. I only use books if at all, for reference purposes. I also try to pay attention to what is happening around me, which reduces my need to read books on political issues.
Not that I think there's anything wrong with reading books of course, it just doesn't float my boat. In fact I believe that those who derive pleasure from reading books are indeed lucky, as it must be for them an enjoyable pastime which can only broaden their knowledge.
I also try to pay attention to what is happening around me, which reduces my need to read books on political issues.
Through which media? Reading a book might just show more sides to an argument.
Stop trying to be a supercilious tw4t, and realise that you're just one of the sheep
Hammer and Feather:
Plus, more importantly, The Russians would have been all over the telemetry data for the missions, and if they thought there was half a chance of it being faked would have been shouting about it from the highest rooftops at the time!
Through which media? Reading a book might just show more sides to an argument.
Who said anything about 'media' ? I said : "I also try to pay attention to what is happening around me."
I'm reminded of how when once confronted by a ranting intellectual trot from the SWP, I pointed out to him that I had learnt my politics from reading my payslips, not by going down to the library and reading books.
There are other ways of gaining knowledge apart from reading books. Including real life experiences, and talking to real life people. I have also attended many meetings which have included many debates and discussions, and have heard many public speakers. Plus I have known people whom I consider to have been great teachers to me, amongst them was my one time political mentor and UCATT regional organiser. And yes, as I have already pointed out, I do read news items, articles, pamphlets, etc.
I am not seeking answers to political riddles and conundrums - I went on my journey of discovery many years ago. And I feel fully satisfied with the conclusions which I came to. As I have mentioned on a previous thread, I believe that the tools which I learnt to use, have enabled me to analyse many issues and think freely for myself - politics really isn't that complex.
I am sure that Andrew Cockburn is an excellent author who has done a great deal of research on the wide and varied topics which he covers in his various books. However, I do not feel a I need to read a book in which he outlines his own conclusions, before I can come to [i]mine.[/i] After all he didn't need to read a book written by me, before coming to [i]his[/i] conclusions.
I don't enjoy reading books, but I don't believe my views are any less valid because of that fact. Indeed seven, I would suggest that you are a [i]'supercilious tw4t'[/i] if you feel that those who don't read books, somehow don't understand all the arguments. Presumably you feel the 800 million people in the World (which is the majority living in poverty) who are illiterate, have no right to any sort of political opinion at all.
btw, I have no problem whatsoever in 'realising that I'm just one of the sheep'. I simply insist on the right of choosing my own shepherd.
I went on my journey of discovery many years ago. And I feel fully satisfied with the conclusions which I came to.
So nowadays you have a closed mind?
So nowadays you have a closed mind?
Pretty much so aracer. As I said : I feel fully satisfied with the conclusions which I came to.
I am of course prepared, to an extent, to listen to what others with opposing views, have to say - but there is no chance at all of me changing my fundamental views. Those views are quite incorruptible. I am very pleased to say.
That at least makes you more honest than most people.
And one of the reasons why I don't take arguing politics too seriously aracer. Because I am fully aware that most people, like me, have already decided before the argument even starts. Although they might not admit to it.
Did you hear the classic moment on R2 on Saturday mid-morning?
They had a 30 minute (?) chat with the Greek documentary film maker who filmed the whole thing from Mission control and around the launch pad etc.
When the show was completed and the presenter was handing over to Sandi Toskvig (?) said presenter asked Sandi where she’d been that memorable day.
“Holding Neil Armstrong’s secretary’s hand in Mission control, of course”
No believing her, Sandi had to explain why this was the case, only for the interviewer to end up asking why he’d spend so much time and money interviewing the Greek docu’ maker when the BBC’s own travel journo’, and next up on the airways hadn’t been interviewed for a lot less hassle!
It was priceless!
Can anyone recommend some tyres for light trail centre use around the Sea of Tarnquility/Serenity?. The conditions are usually dusty/cheesy with some rocks.
There was a moon landings denier on R4 this morning, along with somebody to argue with him. I only caught the end of it but was a bit disappointed that it just seemed to be the same old "Look, the flag's moving!" stuff. I guess there really is no talking to some people.
(mr MC posting)
>Graham S said;
>Even Hubble doesn't come close to having a large enough telescope to resolve an image of the rover - never mind the frickin tyre marks
dont be so sure. I'm NOT into conspiracy theories, but I went to a lecture given by a MOD bloke, and as an aside he mentioned that the reason why the problem with the aberrations from the distorted mirror was solved so quickly was that they had made two mirrors. And the other one was on a satellite not looking "outwards"...
To be honest it beggars belief that so much money would be spent on a technological development with an obvious military application, without that application being exploited.
dont be so sure. I'm NOT into conspiracy theories, but I went to a lecture given by a MOD bloke, and as an aside he mentioned that the reason why the problem with the aberrations from the distorted mirror was solved so quickly was that they had made two mirrors. And the other one was on a satellite not looking "outwards"...
Would it be any good though? Intuitively it seems like something designed to look at stuff light years away would be rubbish for looking at stuff very close up.
What's your point exactly, M-c? You do realise that Hubble is over 600 times as far away from the moon as from the earth, so if it could resolve the rover it would be able to resolve <1cm objects on earth, and despite popular belief they can't actually read newspapers from space.
Intuitively it seems like something designed to look at stuff light years away would be rubbish for looking at stuff very close up.
600km isn't exactly that close up, even for a 2.4m mirror! The focussing required would actually be very little different to that required for stuff light years away.
dont be so sure
I'm sure! Unless those cunning military scientists have somehow broken several fundamental laws of optics and physics then there is no way they have anything big enough to clearly see the rover from Low Earth Orbit.
Given that we can see the International Space Station in orbit with the naked eye, and that is only 73x108m then I'm pretty sure we'd notice a top secret satellite with a mirror that was 25 kilometres in diameter!
It's all made up - set was built on the moors above Bacup then filmed through a big telescope from Todmorden Astronomy centre. The first moon rover was built using running gear from a mk1 1275 Mini Cooper,20 rolls of Bacofoil (turkey size) + really small tractor tyres. Look closely on the photos + you can just see part of the Cooper badge.
Another one to disprove the theory, how convenient that the tapes should be 'lost' 😯
http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2009/07/20/backup-plan-nasa-moon-landings/
tom why have they mispelt bacup /backup in that link?
Junkyard - Member
tom why have they mispelt bacup /backup in that link?
Very suspicious to much of a coincidence.
More proof comes from an old bloke in Bacup who at the time of the later moon missions, was working as a shelf stacker in the Bacup general stores. He remembers a large man with an American accent (think his name was Neil Legstrong?) causing a stir by ordering 20 rolls of Bacofoil (turkey size) in the middle of Summer (very strange). Took a week for the Bacofoil to come from the big city (Manchester).
Similar accounts from Minisport up in Padiham. Had to fit really small tractor tyres to 10" minilite wheels.
The following aerial photo - just off the Bacup road shows the lunar surface:-
[url= http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=todmorden&ie=UTF8&split=0&gl=uk&ei=LXpkSr_AOJjSjAeopb34Dw&ll=53.713822,-2.161485&spn=0.002381,0.004823&t=h&z=18 ]Lunar Surface Bacup[/url]
>Graham S said
>mirror that was 25 kilometres in diameter!
are you tripping?! Or just really flimsy on basic dimensions, let alone the basic rules of optics and physics (PhD and 5 years postdoc research in electron microscopy so have some vague idea about optics since you brought it up).
The Hubble's primary mirror is 2.4 meters in diameter. 25 km, how TF did they get that into space?
http://hubblesite.org/the_telescope/hubble_essentials/