Nasa returning to the moon

For the "non-believers"...not sure if this has been posted before. Images taken by Lunar Orbiter. And of course people will say NASA faked these pics too. Faking these pics would be an even bolder move than faking an actual moon landing.....since the Americans aren't the only ones with lunar orbiters


Nasa has released new images of the Apollo landing sites on the Moon, taken from an orbiting spacecraft.

They show scientific equipment, the lunar rovers and a trail of footprints left by astronauts 40 years ago.

_55196165_55196164.jpg
 
A Darter said:
For the "non-believers"...not sure if this has been posted before. Images taken by Lunar Orbiter. And of course people will say NASA faked these pics too. Faking these pics would be an even bolder move than faking an actual moon landing.....since the Americans aren't the only ones with lunar orbiters


Nasa has released new images of the Apollo landing sites on the Moon, taken from an orbiting spacecraft.

They show scientific equipment, the lunar rovers and a trail of footprints left by astronauts 40 years ago.

_55196165_55196164.jpg
Click to expand...

Who took that picture, was it from a space craft of sorts?
 
The side of the moon that faces us has some craters. How were these craters formed? Was the moon somewhere else when it was peppered by asteroids and meteors and then come to rest in an orbit around the earth? What was earth like when there was no moon in orbit around it?
 
A Darter said:
For the "non-believers"...not sure if this has been posted before. Images taken by Lunar Orbiter. And of course people will say NASA faked these pics too. Faking these pics would be an even bolder move than faking an actual moon landing.....since the Americans aren't the only ones with lunar orbiters


Nasa has released new images of the Apollo landing sites on the Moon, taken from an orbiting spacecraft.

They show scientific equipment, the lunar rovers and a trail of footprints left by astronauts 40 years ago.

_55196165_55196164.jpg
Click to expand...
Obvious Photoshop. Probably by the computers as ordered by the lizard people. This is why we need to send humans up there.
 
Archer said:
Dont forget to spend millions engineering a pen that can work in low gravity! Pencils are for commies, pens are for the cool guys!
Click to expand...
Yeah, I know it's a chuckle.

But there's quite a bt more to that than meets the eye (or at leat an Accountant's eye). In the capitalist world you need to draw up a chart of accounts for every penny spent. In this case they needed to develop a whole range of technologies regarding fluid movements in low/zero gravity (for food delivery, waste extraction, lubrication delivery, etc) and the easiest line item to put it under was "pen development". Besides, on long flights pencil-sharpening produces micro-particles that can get into eyes & lungs, air filtration systems, and sensitive devices. The "pen development" did a helluvu lot more than produce a ballpoint that writes in zero gravity, and the millions on that line item actually included a lot more than meets the eye. At least so I was told at Cape Canaveral.
 
Last edited:
Arthur said:
Yeah, I know it's a chuckle.

But there's quite a bt more to that than meets the eye (or at leat an Accountant's eye). In the capitalist world you need to draw up a chart of accounts for every penny spent. In this case they needed to develop a whole range of technologies regarding fluid movements in low/zero gravity (for food delivery, waste extraction, lubrication delivery, etc) and the easiest line item to put it under was "pen development". Besides, on long flights pencil-sharpening produces micro-particles that can get into eyes & lungs, air filtration systems, and sensitive devices. The "pen development" did a helluvu lot more than produce a ballpoint that writes in zero gravity, and the millions on that line item actually included a lot more than meets the eye. At least so I was told at Cape Canaveral.
Click to expand...
NASA didn't pay to develop the space pen. It was developed independently by another dude named Fisher using his own money. Both the Russians and the Americans used the pen for their space programs.

The whole "Russia used a pencil and America used a pen" thing is nothing more than an urban legend. America and Russia both initially used pencils but they found the use of pencils put graphite and pencil bits into the atmosphere within the capsules and it was getting into the electronics, posed a fire risk in the high oxygen atmospheres of the capsules and posed a hazard to the eyes and respiratory systems of astronauts and cosmonauts floating around in zero gravity. They decided to try the pen this other dude had already developed to solve the problem. Russia did the same.
 
Last edited:
waynegohl said:
The side of the moon that faces us has some craters. How were these craters formed? Was the moon somewhere else when it was peppered by asteroids and meteors and then come to rest in an orbit around the earth? What was earth like when there was no moon in orbit around it?
Click to expand...

The moon was not always tidally locked.

600px-Speed_of_light_from_Earth_to_Moon.gif


Also, see the picture with the size and distances to scale. It's quite conceivable for asteroids to hit the moon even with a face turned to the earth.
 
Jab said:
The moon was not always tidally locked.

600px-Speed_of_light_from_Earth_to_Moon.gif


Also, see the picture with the size and distances to scale. It's quite conceivable for asteroids to hit the moon even with a face turned to the earth.
Click to expand...

should we not have had a similar amount of craters on the side facing away from the moon then?
 
waynegohl said:
should we not have had a similar amount of craters on the side facing away from the moon then?
Click to expand...
We have an atmosphere to burn up most of the small stuff. Only the bigger ones get through. Hardly an "apples with apples" comparison.
 
long-winded explanation for Porchrat.


The Earth orbits around the sun (and not around the moon).
That means the earth is bound by the gravitational force of the sun (and not the moon)
Seeing as the Earth is a "satellite" of the sun it is only reasonably (and logic) to state that it is in fact the sun's gravity that dictates tides on Earth.

The moon's gravity merely exacerbates (spring tide) or cancels-out (neap tide) the existing gravitational pull of the sun.

No moon = we'll still have tides.
Only spring and neap tides will be absent.
 
bubbatentoe said:
long-winded explanation for Porchrat.


The Earth orbits around the sun (and not around the moon).
That means the earth is bound by the gravitational force of the sun (and not the moon)
Seeing as the Earth is a "satellite" of the sun it is only reasonably (and logic) to state that it is in fact the sun's gravity that dictates tides on Earth.

The moon's gravity merely exacerbates (spring tide) or cancels-out (neap tide) the existing gravitational pull of the sun.

No moon = we'll still have tides.
Only spring and neap tides will be absent.
Click to expand...

That would be all cool if tides followed the 24h clock as it spins around its access but the times of tides is directly linked to the moon. http://tbone.biol.sc.edu/tide/tideshow.cgi
 
Last edited:
Oh wow. Put a probe on Titan or Europa then I'll be impressed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X