NASA Forgot How To Go To The Moon!!!

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
reply to post by zorgon

 

Hey Zorgon, thanks for answering my question about going to space, but I had a few other ones in there I was hoping you could help me with.

1st. I asked how is it an optical illusion that the sun and moon are on the same path?

2nd. If the moon is in the sky at 10 o'clock position following the sun at the 2 o'clock position, it appears to me that the moon should be fully lit and not cresting, seeing as how there is some great distance to the moon? I know the cresting happens because of what it's relative position is to us and the sun, but when they are both in our view would the moon not appear full?

3rd. How good of friends are you with what astronauts? If you can give that info?

Thanks lettthereaderunderstand

I think what he is saying is exactly what we have been talking about. If you have a stationary object (the sun) and the earth orbiting the sun, then the moon orbiting earth, the illusion during an eclipse is that our paths of movement are aligned when they are really not.

You also have to keep in mind that light travels 186,282 miles per second. Light takes time to travel the distance it takes to reach the moon. The earth's average distance from the sun is 92,957,000 miles. The moon's is about the same because it constantly orbits the earth.

If you take 92,957,000 miles and divide it by 186,000 miles per second, you end up with light having to travel through space an average of 499.01225 seconds before it reaches the earth and moon. that's a long time (about 8.3 minutes). Therefore, when we on earth look at the sun we are not seeing what it as it is in reality. We are seeing it as it was 8.3 minutes ago and receiving light that the sun was emitting 8.3 minutes ago..

But if you think about it, the only way the moon could be full, if both the sun and moon were visible in the sky, is if the earth itself emitted light. The earth reflects light but doesn't emit it.. The unlit side of a crescent moon is partially lit by the earth's reflection (sometimes referred to as "earthshine") as it is here..






earthshine animation


-ChriS

No, they haven't forgotten how to do it. They would have to completely rebuild all of the assembly plants, if they wanted to do it the same way, but they still know how.

Has anyone else noticed these noobies just pop up all the time with comments like that and nothing to back it up? I have seen this a lot in many threads recently

:shk:

Hope they aren't "sock puppets" I hate those I give em to my dogs to shred

reply to post by zorgon


What I've seen over recent days has irritated me to no end. I'm only whining about it now because you brought it up, but I've seen all of this just in the last day or two...

-People who choose not to read the thread but still post.
-People who make threads with misleading titles.
-People who don't search the forums before posting material with the same exact subject matter which may already have been discussed in great detail.(I'm not going to name anyone, but I think you know who I'm talking about zorg)
-People who are unwilling to remain truly skeptical instead of in denial.
-People who make useless posts which do not in any way add to the thread while others are making insightful replies (stupid and disrespectful)
-People who get ruffled up when you call them out for making such disrespectful posts.
-People who make posts after reading the thread title only.



-ChriS

Originally posted by Lannock
It's been 40 years (give or take a year) since the last (first)

moon mission. EVERYTHING has advanced in leaps and bounds in that 40 years especially computers and electronics. With a large number of space missions since then one would assume that rockets would also have advanced quite a bit. They should have better computers, electronics, life support, everything basically. One would expect them to be faster and more fuel efficient among other things.

Except the environmental conditions are still the same. There is a reason that both US and russian space vehicles are using 60's computer technology for mission critical equipment.

As for rockets, yes, the soviet rockets developed for the soviet moon landing has been released into general use, which is about the most powerful and most fuel efficient engines available.

The new US spacesuits are derived from the old soviet spacesuits, so that gives NASA a whole new dimension of agility and usefulness. NASA now also has access to Soviet heatshield technology, but other than that, the challenges will be much the same.

all they have to do is watch this and they'll know how to go to the moon!
www.youtube.com...

reply to post by SLAYER69

Sory that won't help them that was "Take Four"

Here is "Take Two"



Just overlay the backgrounds

reply to post by zorgon


With modern CGI we can make a much better video of the next landing!

Here's something to chew on...

www.youtube.com...

edit for spelling

[edit on 6/9/0808 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by SLAYER69
With modern CGI we can make a much better video of the next landing!

They already did... and used the same set




Same black backdrop...



A little green screen to add the mountains later



Gravity 'adjuster'



Final product... not bad... not bad at all those mountains are right on




[edit on 9-6-2008 by zorgon]

reply to post by zorgon


And Tom Hanks was already a grown man, in 1969???

Dudes, and Dudettes....what Zorgon has posted are pictures from the production of Tom Hanks' HBO series "From the Earth to the Moon"

And he calls ME a troll. Yes, Zorgon called ME a troll!!!

Hello, pot? This is the kettle....

Originally posted by weedwhacker
And he calls ME a troll. Yes, Zorgon called ME a troll!!!

You bet Herr TROLL and you just proved it..

Those pictures were in response to a question on CGI that we could make a better landing movie now... I am sure people can clearly see the date and IMAX copyright on the pictures.

I pointed to Tom hanks movie and said THEY ALREADY DID and used the SAME STUDIO

Do you EVER read what someone else posts? Or do you shoot off at the mouth without engaging the brain?



[edit on 10-6-2008 by zorgon]

reply to post by zorgon


Oy vey!!

Show me an example of CGI technology in 1969. Anyone in the movie industry? the computer industry??

Kubrick and Trumbal (spelling?) did a masterful job in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey, but that was traditional model-making and photography. The opening scene 'Dawn of Man' used a front-projection technique.

So, this was cutting-edge (bleeding-edge) technology in the late 1960s.

[You have a U2U from staff concerning this edit.]

[edit on 10-6-2008 by NGC2736]

reply to post by weedwhacker


Last time...

You have seen my presentation on the studio work that NASA did...

www.thelivingmoon.com...

The CGI comment was not your question nor did I respond to you on it... what I see here is you continue to twist words others say to suit your own needs...

Please do others that can understand the courtesy of sticking to what is actually said

Thanks for your post

NASA forgot how to go to the moon. That's funny. Very good thread so far. I'm thoroughly enjoying it. As for whether or not they went to the moon in the first place, I'd lay odds that they did. There were enough people independently tracking the launch and landing with their telescopes that if they didn't go, I'm pretty sure someone would have said something. If they faked the footage they showed, it wasn't because they didn't go, it was because they did and they found something they didn't want us to see.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Dudes, and Dudettes....what Zorgon has posted are pictures from the production of Tom Hanks' HBO series "From the Earth to the Moon"

I hate to be nitpicky, but those were actually from "Magnificent Desolation." "From the Earth to the Moon" was not done in IMAX.

And he calls ME a troll. Yes, Zorgon called ME a troll!!!

Welcome to the club, this is what happens when you prove him wrong.

Originally posted by COOL HAND
Welcome to the club, this is what happens when you prove him wrong.

Not sure how I was proved wrong in this case

But I never called you a troll A professional disinfo agent maybe but you did admit to your job stats

reply to post by zorgon


Thanks for the studio picture.


From the Moon:
www.space1.com...
on this page on the surface probe.

www.space1.com...

A device that has always puzzled me as to its effectiveness.
I don't recall posting the landing video here but does having
the probe under a pad and all the gold gift wrap prove it landed on the Moon?


I would expect the probe to pop off and land far away.

The US never went to the moon. It orbited around the Earth and the moon footage "as seen on tv" was orchestrated by the US govt. as a cold war tactic designed to prove technical/tactical superiority. It was a war game and many who threatened to reveal the truth were murdered or disappeared altogether. Research this yourself if you like and review the video footage of the moon landing/takeoff. All the evidence one needs is found in the footage...including the layout of the moonscape proved an exact copy of Area 51 All the evidence one needs can be found in the moon landing tapes. They should be available online somewhere though this issue is old news and I don't care to elaborate here.

Originally posted by oceanaut1
The US never went to the moon. It orbited around the Earth and the moon footage "as seen on tv" was orchestrated by the US govt. as a cold war tactic designed to prove technical/tactical superiority.

It stayed in earth orbit huh? Then please explain why private astronomers were able to spot the spacecraft on its way to the moon and even recorded the apollo 13 explosion.


Apollo 11 outbound



Apollo 13 explosion

We landed on the moon.