How about the second astronaut, or one of the cameras on the LEM?
Did We Really Go To The Moon
- Thread starter ditm
- Start date
I was refering to the actual first step
So it couldn't be taken from a second astronaut it "would seem that he lowers a small drawbridge that held a TV camera. "
and the same site also quates aldrin saying:
"After less than a day on the lunar surface, it is time to go. Using its one small engine, the top part of the Eagle rises up. Dust blows everywhere. "I looked up long enough to see the flag fall over," Aldrin recalls. "
Therefore for the following missions NASA asked to plant the flag at least a 100 m away
You learn something new evryday
From http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0720_050719_moon_walk.html
July 20, 2005—Thirty six years ago today Neil Armstrong became the first person to set foot on another celestial body, the moon. "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind," he said before imprinting his boot in the lunar dust. About half a billion people watched the images seen in this video. The televised images were relayed to Earth from a camera mounted on a leg of the Apollo 11 lunar module.
Hmm.
According to Science, Selene is "an orbiter and a pair of smaller satellites that will aim instruments at the moon to collect the most detailed data yet on its topography, the elemental makeup of its surface, its magnetism, and its gravitational field."
However, this is in an article detailing the failing of a Japanese project to fire two impacters into the surface of the moon to detect seismic activity and perhaps learn about the innards of the moon.
The Japanese project, LUNAR-A, is 12 years late (it was originally slated to be launched in 1995) and has just recently been scrapped as the penetrators still weren't ready and the orbiter, in the meantime, had deteriorated in storage.
Could it be that the LUNAR-A penatrators are slated to be attached to the SELENE-B satellite for deployment?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/315/5811/445a
(Subscription required of course. If interested, I could probably copy-paste it here.)
http://www.clavius.org/techcrater.html
Sorry they probebly did land on the moon, altough with the exeption of that 1 mission that brought back parts of a satelite, it's hard the find anything meaningfull in the entire apollo mission.
Sorry they probebly did land on the moon, altough with the exeption of that 1 mission that brought back parts of a satelite, it's hard the find anything meaningfull in the entire apollo mission.
Its like deja vu - can someone get 'the big telescope' to have a look before another manned mission lands there (or this debate will never be settled)?
Do you not understand the explanation that the thruster was throttled down, and that the nozzle spread that thrust out, and that the thrust dissipated in the vacuum? I posted the math too.
So u mean that the flag should not fall off due to the thrust winds during liftoff from moon ?
BTW thanks but this is news for me, Mr. Deja Vu.
The moon? We should have been on Mars by now. We threw away the technology we used to get to the moon after the last Apollo landing over 30 years ago. If we had kept it, we could have probably been on Mars by now. As a result of NASA's short-sightedness, we now have to start from scratch just to get back to the moon again. The chinese will probably be already there with an established scientific research moon base handing out tea bags to all of the weary travelers from Earth. What a waste of superb technology. Bummer.
Last edited:
I dont get the idea from those who say that americans didnt go to moon.Whats the difference for u to say this or maybe us feel pleassure about that :bugeye: .We have loads of sattelites few rovers on mars and it is not a fckn.. event wich u can organise every day knowing that it costs billions for such trip.
Sorry but its not dead. The Martian rock that we suspect propagated life on earth from mars, some of them are there on the moon too, really, trust me.
Was it NASAs fault?
... Yes NASA where to careful, their missions so boring that they people lost interests.
What apollo did could have been don cheaper by machines, all of the lunar material that was collected wasn't proberly bagged so the stuff chemical bonded with the corrisve pure oxygen atmosphere. But okay the public didn't know that then.
What could have made the mission more exiting for example would have been explosions imagen if NASA was allowed to yuse dynamite or other explosives. To make a little crater (far away from the lander), it's scientific goals would have been increased and the show would have been bigger.
Some rappelling of nearby craterswalls would also have been geological interesting while being exiting for the public. If there where some spelunking of Lavatubes would also have been nice, granted I'm not sure if there where any in apollo's landing zone. And perhaps a return to a former landing zone, to see if the flag still standing see how the rocks in the self made craters are altered because of solar radiation examening the remains from the LEM and the chemical reaction from the rocket exhaust on the soil, etc.
All these proposels would have been more exiting then NASA's program I think. And none of them could have been performed better or cheaper by robots.
Of course not. NASA did not say "well, we've been to the Moon. There's nothing else to do. We might as well defund ourselves". We have the President and Congress and the people who elected them to thank for that decision, not NASA. NASA was to blame in that their post-Apollo vision wasn't particularly awesome (to say the least). But NASA's vision was sorely limited by the funds allocated to NASA.
My understanding was that great risks were taken in getting to the moon (before the Russians did). Certainly by todays standards.
what can I say it's show and flair. Getting at your distenation should have been the easy part besides how dangerous would it have been to bring some explosives. And it their free time they played bloody golf. If they would have revisited a old landing side and replaced the rovers batteries they could have kept a bloody car race.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/a15_m_2606.html
It seemed that there where lava tubes in the possible landing area. It would have been a good landing zone
It seemed that there where lava tubes in the possible landing area. It would have been a good landing zone
This image shows that there is too much dust around the lander for not to form a crater. And then USA can be lucky only once not so many times in all their lunar missions not to have a crater in that fluffy soil.
Any comments people from USA
Any comments people from USA