Apollo 11 press confrence*** I smell a hoax***!

[Ganymede]

I've neither raised or mentioned the subject of the Moon Car, whatever that is - I presume your referring to the Lunar Rover - nor mentioned anything at all about Hubble - comprehension isn't your strong suit really, is it?

However, since you're obviously not up on what Hubble is actually designed for looking at and you insisted on bringing the matter up: The Moon, as you know (or likely don't, given the amount of things you do seem to be aware of) is roughly 384,400 km away. At that distance, the smallest things Hubble can distinguish are about 60 meters wide. The biggest piece of left-behind Apollo equipment is only 9 meters across and thus smaller than a single pixel in a Hubble image.

Basically Hubble is designed to observe large scale objects over vast distance, not small scale objects over short - it's a little like using glasses designed to compensate for short sightedness for reading close up. Generally speaking it doesn't work terribly well...

However, since you asked about proof regarding the location of the left behind landing section of the LLM - here is a photograph of the remaining landing section of the LLM left by the Apollo 17 mission:

It's the tiny dot located between the cross hairs marked, curiously enough, LM. LM stands for Landing Module. Anything else you're unsure about - which way is up, what colour is black, what do nostrils actually do, which end to correctly put your under-ware on, that sort of kidney - do feel free to drop us a line and, once we've finished snickering at you, perhaps we'll help sort you out on those matters as well.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA

 

[draqon]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA

you can express the emotion with ....mathematical formula: sum(AH^15 to A^6)

 

[Ganymede]

I'm sorry, but that doesn't convince me not one bit. If the Hubble Telescope can take pictures of distant Galaxies, Nebula, why can't it take a Hi-Rez picture of the lunar surface?

 

[draqon]

I'm sorry, but that doesn't convince me not one bit. If the Hubble Telescope can take pictures of distant Galaxies, Nebula, why can't it take a Hi-Rez picture of the lunar surface?

how hq do you wanna go? this thing is already hq. Americans were on the moon! stop denying it (if u are). Movies show that they have been there.

 

[superluminal]

Ofcourse they were, the Sun is an infinite source of deadly radiation.

Yep.

"During a solar maximum, about 15 flares per day emit detectable X-ray energies."

http://radhome.gsfc.nasa.gov/radhome/papers/seeca3.htm

"...(1964 for solar minimum and 1970 for solar maximum)."

"So the Apollo missions, from 1969 to 1972, were occurring during a solar maximum, when there would have been peak numbers of solar flares per day!

Edward P. Ney estimates the radiation risks in an article titled The Sun Under Surveillance in the 1967 World Book Science Year: "We have rough estimates of what the moon travelers can expect, based on a few observations made during the last solar maximum in 1957. The most violent flares probably will produce exposures of 100 roentgens each hour and may hold this level for several hours". The terms roentgen and rem (Roentgen Equivalent Man) are interchangeable.

This level of radiation dose is confirmed by Space Biomedical Research Institute in Humans in Space:
"SOLAR FLARE
Very hazardous and intermittent but may persist for 1 to 2 days.
High energy protons travel at the speed of light so there is no time to get under cover.
Protected dose 10-100 REM/hr
Unprotected dose Fatal"

http://internet.ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo5.htm

I think that's exactly what I said. If a particularly violent flare were to occur, they would have been killed.

3) The skins of the lunar spacecraft were intentionally thin for two important reasons:

a) Weight, obviously.

b) Cosmic rays can (not always) pass through a human without causing too much damage. If a cosmic ray hits a heavy metallic nuclei, it will produce a cascade of even more deadly secondary radiation. Thin walls minimize this threat.

Can you please link the source of this information. I'm definately interested in learning more about it.

Nope.

4) Propulsion technology was more than adequate to get us to the moon. In the 50's we had successfully tested several variations on nuclear fission rockets (NERVA) for example.

No we didn't, the NEVA program wasn't propsed until 1954, and was still in the concept phase as of 1957. So "several variations" were not conducted.

1 - KIWI A

The first nuclear rocket test, conducted in July 1959, used uncoated UO2 plates as fuel elements. This test reached a maximum temperature of 2683 K and a power level of 70 MWt. Vibrations during operations produced significant structural damage in the reactor core.

The first nuclear reactor tested, KIWI-A, successfully demonstrated the principle of nuclear rockets, but it used unclad fuel plates that were not representative of later tests.

2 - KIWI A'

This test, conducted in July 1959, incorporated significant modifications in the core design used in KIWI A. The fuel consisted of short cylindircal Uranium Oxide elements in graphite modules, with four axial channels coated with Niobium Carbide using chemical vapor deposition. The reactor ran for 6 minutes at power levels as high as 85 MWt.

KIWI-A prime, tested in 1960, replaced the fuel plates with NbC plated graphite modules with 4 micron diameter UO2 particles embedded in the graphite matrix. However, some structural damage occurred in this improved design during its 6 minute test.

3 - KIWI A3

The subsequent KIWI-A3 reactor used a higher temperature Chemical Vapor Deposition process, resulting in a thicker NbC coat with improved adherence. Some core damage occurred during the 5 minute test in October 1959, which reached power levels of 100 MWt, with some fuel elements showing blistering and corrosion. Generally this reactor test was considered successful.

Yes, this counts as "several" all in '59.

I repsectfully disagree, your opinion is subjective.

Whatever.

Are you a clarivoyant?

Yes.

You don't need a manned mission to the moon to place reflectors on the lunar surface. Did the mars rover require a manned mission.. nope

Correct.

9) What was indeed far behind the propulsion technology of the day was theatrical special effects. There is no way the lunar vistas (from lunar orbit or the surface), the extended low-g lunar dust and other effects, views of the earth from the lunar surface and lunar orbit, could have been faked. I think you need to investigate the conspiracy to hide the existence of advanced sun graphics workstations and digital ray-tracing and image manipulation software from the world. In the 60's. Righto.

More conjecture, please explain why there was no visible blast crater left by the lunar module? An Astronaut can leave a foot print, but a rocket engine with 10,000 pounds of thrust can't? Righto

http://www.clavius.org/techcrater.html

So, you didn't explain how they pulled off such amazingly realistic special effects in '69.

 

[KennyJC]

Just curious... If it really was faked, how did they get the dust kicked up by the wheels of the buggy, to act as though it was in a vacuum? If it was on Earth, the dust would hang in the air and get blown around.

 

[superluminal]

I'm sorry, but that doesn't convince me not one bit. If the Hubble Telescope can take pictures of distant Galaxies, Nebula, why can't it take a Hi-Rez picture of the lunar surface?

Now you're demonstrating just why conspiracy folks (like you) are ridiculed and laughed at. It's been explained to you in more than enough detail just what the resolution capabilities of hubble are. Now, if you insist on not researching the relevant properties of telescopes, such as resolving power and light gathering ability, then you shoud shut the fuck up. Distant galaxies are big. Far, but big. The angular res of hubble is 0.1 arc second. This is about 60m/pixel on the moons surface and 6 light years on the image of a galaxy that is a few hundred million lightyears away.

Read a book.

 

[Mr Anonymous]

I'm sorry, but that doesn't convince me not one bit. If the Hubble Telescope can take pictures of distant Galaxies, Nebula, why can't it take a Hi-Rez picture of the lunar surface?

Answer:

The Moon, as you know (or likely don't, given the amount of things you do seem to be aware of) is roughly 384,400 km away. At that distance, the smallest things Hubble can distinguish are about 60 meters wide. The biggest piece of left-behind Apollo equipment is only 9 meters across and thus smaller than a single pixel in a Hubble image.

Basically Hubble is designed to observe large scale objects over vast distance, not small scale objects over short - it's a little like using glasses designed to compensate for short sightedness for reading close up. Generally speaking it doesn't work terribly well...

Plus, exactly what Superluminal just said.... nimrod.

 

[Ganymede]

Now you're demonstrating just why conspiracy folks (like you) are ridiculed and laughed at. It's been explained to you in more than enough detail just what the resolution capabilities of hubble are. Now, if you insist on not researching the relevant properties of telescopes, such as resolving power and light gathering ability, then you shoud shut the fuck up. Distant galaxies are big. Far, but big. The angular res of hubble is 0.1 arc second. This is about 60m/pixel on the moons surface and 6 light years on the image of a galaxy that is a few hundred million lightyears away.

Read a book.

/yawn

 

[KennyJC]

/yawn

LOL

That about sums it up doesn't it?

 

[draqon]

trying to gather up an argument that has long since lost its grounds...

 

[Ganymede]

Answer:



Plus, exactly what Superluminal just said.... nimrod.

Now I get it! We lack the Technology to get a Hi-rez picture of the lunar surface. But have the Technology to send a man to the moon 36 years ago.

 

[superluminal]

Now I get it! We lack the Technology to get a Hi-rez picture of the lunar surface. But have the Technology to send a man to the moon 36 years ago.

Ummm... Yes. It's called "optical physics".

So, the answer to all of your questions from now on is "shut the fuck up you ignorant asshat".

You might as well find a different forum to abuse. And, by the way:

Shut the fuck up you ignorant asshat.

 

[superluminal]

Thread closure in 3... 2... 1...

 

[draqon]

Now I get it! We lack the Technology to get a Hi-rez picture of the lunar surface. But have the Technology to send a man to the moon 36 years ago.

 

[draqon]

Ummm... Yes. It's called "optical physics".

So, the answer to all of your questions from now on is "shut the fuck up you ignorant asshat".

You might as well find a different forum to abuse. And, by the way:

Shut the fuck up you ignorant asshat.

You are assaulting member of this community. Please stop it.

 

[superluminal]

You are assaulting member of this community. Please stop it.

Bite me.

 

[draqon]

Bite me.

You are encouraging violence on a member of this community, which is you. STOP ENCOURAGIN VIOLENCE. I do not agree to violent ways.

Although if ur a grl, ill bite you on a chick softly ...if u r a grl and let me.

 

[superluminal]

You are encouraging violence on a member of this community, which is you. STOP ENCOURAGIN VIOLENCE. I do not agree to violent ways.

Although if ur a grl, ill bite you on a chick softly

Excuse me, I'm not suggesting violence of any kind. However, you are engaging in sexual discrimination and a double standard of response. Shame on you.

 

[draqon]

Excuse me, I'm not suggesting violence of any kind. However, you are engaging in sexual discrimination and a double standard of response. Shame on you.

shame on me.