Why isn't Orion landing on the moon

a reply to: AOx6179

Even if there was a lander capable of landing and returning, you don't do something that complex on your first flight. That's the equivalent of building a new fighter, and on the first flight going up, pulling 9Gs, and going supersonic. Test programs are designed to build up to more complex things. First flight on this one is ensuring everything works as planned, it can get to the moon and return safely. Then you test the same thing with crew on board. Then you land on the moon.

Call me conspiracy theorist, but blow up the photo. the moon and earth are photoshopped in. I'd post it myself but i cant figure out how to.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: putnam6

There have been quite a few so far. The one posted up thread shows the far side.

Not those been following since day 1 the closet shows of the moon were black and white shots in the Artemis image gallery



when they first did the fly by they were 60 miles or so above the surface of the moon.

I find it hard to believe they didn't take any hi-res shots now whether they share them or not who knows

images.nasa.gov...,video,audio&yearStart=1920&yearEnd=2022

a reply to: AOx6179

If you don't believe we went to the moon I can prove to you we did.

You can go to where we store the moon rocks we collected when we were on the moon (there is footage of the astronauts collecting them). When you take a look at them you will notice that they are full of little tiny metier impact craters. Then you can take a microscope and look very closely at them. What you will then notice is that there are even microscopic impact craters inside of the tiny ones you seen with your naked eye.

Now these are very significant because these are what proves that those rocks came from the moon. The only way you can get those microscopic impact craters is if there was no atmosphere for the metiers to travel through. Because if there was, metiers that small would burn up from the friction against the air molecules as seen with "shooting stars".

There is no doubt those rocks came from the moon. There is no doubt we did indeed land on the moon.

Wasn't some of the moon rocks from Apollo 11 proved to be ( petrified ) wood? I believe some European Country had made the claim.


a reply to: Alien Abduct

a reply to: Thunderkiss75

No. The one that was petrified wood was not given to them by NASA. It was given to a former Dutch Prime Minister by the US ambassador, who claims to not recall how the State Department got it. At the time it was given to him, NASA wasn’t giving out any rocks, because they were still cataloging them. They didn’t start giving them out until a few years later.

a reply to: Zaphod58

There's not even that much evidence that the ambassador gave the ex-PM the fossil, it was just in a display case along with a card from the Apollo 11 visit and the two were put together for an art exhibit.

onebigmonkey.com...

a reply to: putnam6

So there haven't been any photographs of the far side apart from the photographs of the far side?

The cameras they've got on board are primarily to record the spacecraft performance. They are recording in high definition, and those get sent back when bandwidth permits. The recordings will be released when they get back. You obviously can't send back live images from the far side when the moon is in the way.

They haven't spent that much time close to the lunar surface, and as the priority is checking the spacecraft there's not much point in wasting bandwidth sending back photos of anything that has already been photographed in great detail since the1960s.

www.nasa.gov...

a reply to: igloo

Generations of scientists and astronauts have done exactly that, for prestige and knowledge. Profit? Not so much. There will never be a profit in it, which is why Governments have found other things to spend money on.

They landed on the moon 6 times. It's not impossible, just expensive.

There was no CGI in the 60s.

originally posted by: AOx6179
a reply to: AOx6179
Just seems to me they should of checked the landing capabilities on the mission.

The official Mission Statement says there is no planned landing, and apparently there ie not even any landing capability, so...

Come on, man! There are plenty of real, actual conspiracies out there to occupy your mind with.

originally posted by: Kocag
As stated in the information that you posted in the OP says it's going to come down in the ocean. A craft designed to be retrieved from the water would have a hard time landing on the moon.

.. wut ?

this so Dystopic that I don't even know where to start

You can go to where we store the moon rocks we collected when we were on the moon (there is footage of the astronauts collecting them).

a reply to: Alien Abduct

Ok, question about the rocks. They just released info about the rocks. Just this year I believe. Why did they wait 50+ years to start examining these rocks?

a reply to: igloo
Eventually the moon landings will pass out of living memory. The youngest people that can remember are what? 60-odd years old now. Nearly dead.

There isn't really any point for humans to go there (same for Mars). Will the general population tune in and show much of an interest? I mean yeah it's great and all to watch someone land and bop around on the moon, but... I'm A Celebrity is on the other channel, so...

Of course a lot of people are going to say it's fake, but I assure you that it's a real jungle...

a reply to: AOx6179

They didn't. They've been working with them since they finished cataloging them. They have some that they haven't touched since they came back, but they had over 800 pounds to work with. Something like 400 samples a year are sent out to various locations for research and teaching.

a reply to: baggy7981

57 Don't push it.

a reply to: AOx6179

I have a shelf of books upstairs from the first lunar science conferences that happened just after the each of the missions, with scientific papers written by authors from all over the world. I also have geology reports and books full of analyses and photos of the rocks all dating from the Apollo era.

a reply to: AOx6179

Why do you think they waited 50 years before they examined the rocks?

They didn't wait at all.

How many scientists from the Apollo program would still be current as well?Would be a case of integrating the knowledge from back then with the data and technology of today.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: AOx6179

I have a shelf of books upstairs from the first lunar science conferences that happened just after the each of the missions, with scientific papers written by authors from all over the world. I also have geology reports and books full of analyses and photos of the rocks all dating from the Apollo era.

. That is very cool!!

a reply to: AOx6179

Pssssttttt…

The “agreement” with Them from our first “giant step for mankind” (screw you Cancel Culture, uh, I mean, ‘sic’) obviously was only for 50 years!

Why look how much more (eta: advanced) humankind is now compared to the 1960/early 70s!! (/sarcasm off)

The “test flight” steps have been explained. The landing will happen in the future. But remember that there is also Project Gateway (in orbit station for travel to the moon and elsewhere…). All of this has to be tested out for TCO (total cost of operation) if for nothing else than the fickle politics associated with budgets in DC (ever see the overview of fusion research?? “Snoopy eyes”).

In God We Trust!!

$$$