Yes, probe could send the LRRR to the moon, but for the alignment of the reflector, human adjustment is much easier than a smart robot, which seems impossible in the Apollo time.
was the moon landing fake?
- Thread starter mars13
- Start date
snake river rufus
Registered Senior Member
I agree. I'm just stating what a HBs usual answer is.daktaklakpak said:
Q
Qorl
Guest
LRRR Description/Purpose
An optical corner reflector to measure lunar librations (both in latitude and longitude), the recession of the moon from the Earth due to tidal dissipation, and the irregular motion of the Earth, including the Chandler wobble of the poles.
-You could make a computer software who will measure lunar librations, you don't need LRRR. For me is a brain washing material.
-WHY THEY DIDN'T GO AGAIN. This is not a question for me any more.
An optical corner reflector to measure lunar librations (both in latitude and longitude), the recession of the moon from the Earth due to tidal dissipation, and the irregular motion of the Earth, including the Chandler wobble of the poles.
-You could make a computer software who will measure lunar librations, you don't need LRRR. For me is a brain washing material.
-WHY THEY DIDN'T GO AGAIN. This is not a question for me any more.
snake river rufus
Registered Senior Member
They stopped the Apollo program because of budget constraintsQorl said:
Qorl said:
Totally wrong. You need to completely rethink that idea. All a program (software) could do is estimate and predict those results based on modeling and the information (which will probably not be accurate) you provide it. Software cannot "measure" anything like that. Actual measurements require doing it physically - which is what the LRRR allows them to do.
Yeah, software can only simulate something based on a data model, and the data model is built from data collected in real meansurements.
And flying to moon is like burning money. US is rich, but still can't burn money forever.
And flying to moon is like burning money. US is rich, but still can't burn money forever.
Q
Qorl
Guest
People don't be ignorant any more.
Take your own advice. Wheres your evidence that it was faked? Have you thought about how massive the conspiracy would have to be for it to have been faked? No less than 50 thousand people, whats funny is not one has come forward and said "Yeah we faked it." You would think out of 50k people at least one would come forward eh?
Fafnir665 said:
One widely held belief in Russia, was that Lunokhod1 was piloted by a KGB Dwarf, because they didn't believe it was possible to control the rover from the earth!
So Russia has it's share of nutters too!
Q
Qorl
Guest
-I'm not saying they were or not. I'm just giving example, If I will go I'll be more open about it. That's all.
-Russia send a Tito in space for fun.
Peace
-Russia send a Tito in space for fun.
Peace
http://www.iolky.com/spaceprogram/earthrise_as17-151-23188.jpg
Why is it that we can see EarthRise on moon , when fact is that from moon earth should always be seen fixed in the sky ?
Why is it that we can see EarthRise on moon , when fact is that from moon earth should always be seen fixed in the sky ?
Anomalous said:
Wrong. They landed on the terminator, so there wouldn't be in the "hottest" or "coldest" portion of the moon. When you are on the "edge" like this, you will see the earth rise and set, because of moon "wobble".
Here's a Link. Read it, understand!
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
None of the moon landings were anywhere near the terminator.
The terminator has bugger all to do with the Earth and everything to do with sunrise.
The photograph above does not show an Earth rise.
I am utterly bemused as to why Anomalous thinks the photograph shows an Earth rise.
I am utterly bemused as to why squeak thinks his explanation contains anything meaningful.
The terminator has bugger all to do with the Earth and everything to do with sunrise.
The photograph above does not show an Earth rise.
I am utterly bemused as to why Anomalous thinks the photograph shows an Earth rise.
I am utterly bemused as to why squeak thinks his explanation contains anything meaningful.
I think its just a term, a phrase of speech. It sound better to say "Earthrise" than "Earthkindafloatinginonespotallthetime"
ever hear the phrase " young and dumb "?
or maybe this:
http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k_v86/k0501par.htm
or maybe this:
http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k_v86/k0501par.htm
Q
Qorl
Guest
Anomalous and everyone,
A lot of people speaks about logic on this forum, so I will give you an example of LOGIC.
-IS IT LOGIC THAT THE EARTH ON YOUR PICTURE LOOKS THE SAME AS THE MOON FROM THE EARTH?
I think that the earth should look much much bigger.
A lot of people speaks about logic on this forum, so I will give you an example of LOGIC.
-IS IT LOGIC THAT THE EARTH ON YOUR PICTURE LOOKS THE SAME AS THE MOON FROM THE EARTH?
I think that the earth should look much much bigger.
Qorl said:
No your logic is flawed just like your Avatar. The earth is indeed bigger in the picture. Did U ever used a camera, try taking the moon photo and compare it with thoes from Moon of earths.
use these to compare or try googling for better
Dont forget to save them with U incase Nasa bans them, if U r upto somehting, U Alien scum of the universe.
Last edited:
Q
Qorl
Guest
Anomalous
The earth on your pictures is smaller than the moon from the earth.
Click for pictures.
http://www.freemars.org/jeff/planets/Luna/Luna.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/sci_tech/newsid_3166000/3166675.stm
The earth on your pictures is smaller than the moon from the earth.
Click for pictures.
http://www.freemars.org/jeff/planets/Luna/Luna.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/sci_tech/newsid_3166000/3166675.stm