Moon landing pictures question

"andy" said:
if you really want to conspire about something then go read the mission logs and conspire about why astronauts comments such as ''it would be horribe living over there'' are followed by pages of blanked out transmissions ;):p
Click to expand...

The theory I want to hear from him is why Russia allowed this conspiracy to happen and went along with it?
 
There are a lot of problems that i could bring up.

If it was so easy to go to to the moon from 1969 to 1972 six times, they went twice in one year ffs (1971) apparently. Why has man not gone again, why is it that the rockets that fly them up to the space station (apparently) are more advanced and more powerful than the rockets that took them to the moon but yet they don't go all the 480000km round trip. Why stop at the edge of our atmospthere and dock with a satellite going at 10000km an hour around the earth ? Surely if we can go to the moon twice in 1971 then we can go to the moon for the same price as doing an oil change on the ISS ?

In 1969 they flew there on one rocket, beating the radiation belt and taking pictures of the planet while flying at constant velocity on the endless vacuum that is space, until it reached the moon. Where it entered orbit and then took a part of the space ship and flew down to the moon. Where they took pictures and played golf. They then got back in the lander. Flew up to the orbiting space ship and docked at it while it is speeding around the moon. They then some how had enough thrust to get them back the 240000km journey in time for christmas and they safely landed with a parachute.

oh yea, sure. lol!!!
 
Last edited:
C'mon, you're just trolling now, you've avoided ALL of the points people have raised, you've then stated you can come up with "lots of problems" yet you've come up with none?
 
groen said:
There are a lot of problems that i could bring up.

If it was so easy to go to to the moon from 1969 to 1972 six times, they went twice in one year ffs (1971) apparently. Why has man not gone again, why is it that the rockets that fly them up to the space station (apparently) are more advanced and more powerful than the rockets that took them to the moon but yet they don't go all the 480000km round trip. Why stop at the edge of our atmospthere and dock with a satellite going at 10000km an hour around the earth ? Surely if we can go to the moon twice in 1971 then we can go to the moon for the same price as doing an oil change on the ISS ?
Click to expand...

Because the stuff done in earth orbit (satellites, telescopes, ISS) actually benefits us more?

All we get from the moon is some interesting rocks, and some knowledge of how it came to exist.


groen said:
In 1969 they flew there on one rocket, beating the radiation belt and taking pictures of the planet while flying at constant velocity on the endless vacuum that is space, until it reached the moon. Where it entered orbit and then took a part of the space ship and flew down to the moon. Where they took pictures and played golf. They then got back in the lander. Flew up to the orbiting space ship and docked at it while it is speeding around the moon. They then some how had enough thrust to get them back the 240000km journey in time for christmas and they safely landed with a parachute.

oh yea, sure. lol!!!
Click to expand...

Not sure if you've noticed.. the earth's slightly bigger than the moon. Big rocket used to go from earth's field of mavity to the moon's, smaller one for the other way. Not sure where you get "constant velocity" from, velocity was only ever near constant in orbit on the Apollo flights. You've got constant acceleration or deceleration on the trip between the earth and moon.

mavity does most the work. How about you pull physics book out and look at the theory before you go "oh yea, sure. lol!!!". It's actually very simple.

simulatorman said:
You've just dropped a clanger. :p
Click to expand...

:p
 
Last edited:
wherethegreenscreenstar.jpg


a lot of the nasa pictures you can see where the green screen would have started.
 
groen said:
There are a lot of problems that i could bring up.

If it was so easy to go to to the moon from 1969 to 1972 six times, they went twice in one year ffs (1971) apparently. Why has man not gone again, why is it that the rockets that fly them up to the space station (apparently) are more advanced and more powerful than the rockets that took them to the moon but yet they don't go all the 480000km round trip. Why stop at the edge of our atmospthere and dock with a satellite going at 10000km an hour around the earth ? Surely if we can go to the moon twice in 1971 then we can go to the moon for the same price as doing an oil change on the ISS ?

In 1969 they flew there on one rocket, beating the radiation belt and taking pictures of the planet while flying at constant velocity on the endless vacuum that is space, until it reached the moon. Where it entered orbit and then took a part of the space ship and flew down to the moon. Where they took pictures and played golf. They then got back in the lander. Flew up to the orbiting space ship and docked at it while it is speeding around the moon. They then some how had enough thrust to get them back the 240000km journey in time for christmas and they safely landed with a parachute.

oh yea, sure. lol!!!
Click to expand...

The current rocket has a massive payload (the shuttle) that's why its more powerful it can't go all the way to the moon it would run out of fuel :D

And yup they did all that :p
 
Green screen? Fake?

If I was not rolleyesing myself to the teeth right now I'd be roffling my nads off.
 
groen said:
a lot of the nasa pictures you can see where the green screen would have started.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the green screen that they then did epic photorealistic computer generated moonscapes on... with a computer.... right?

Or did they just have some really good photos from when they went to the moon to project behind them?
 
Last edited:
TheCenturion said:
I think it's because the moon is smaller.
Click to expand...

its more that it is a surface with very few distinguishable features - if you stood in a sandy desert and took a similar picture with no reference points going up to the horizon then you'd get a similar result. It isn't so much that it looks closer more that you're unable to get any appreciation of how far away it is.
 
groen said:
hydrogen fuels cells that had not been invented yet.
Click to expand...

Whut? O_o

The principle of the fuel cell was discovered by German scientist Christian Friedrich Schönbein in 1838 and published in one of the scientific magazines of the time. Based on this work, the first fuel cell was demonstrated by Welsh scientist and barrister Sir William Robert Grove in the February 1839 edition of the Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science and later sketched, in 1842, in the same journal. The fuel cell he made used similar materials to today's phosphoric-acid fuel cell.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_fuel_cell#History

Seriously, you're getting more hilarious as the evening wears on. Have you read any books on the subject that don't have the words "Hoax" and "Conspiracy" on the cover?
 
groen said:
oh what so no green screens but they could fly to the moon on car batteries (as one of the astronauts said himself) or as someone said here, hydrogen fuels cells that had not been invented yet.
Click to expand...


Nah they flew on the back of a dinosaur m8. Dangled a carrot in front of it! LOL !!!!

That's if the dinosaurs actually existed? Do we have proof? Or were those bones planted there by the USA?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom