Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore
I saw an interview with Buzz Aldrin a little while ago discussing the Apollo 11 landing. He said when they started the de-orbit burn Neil Armstrong said immediately that they were going to be short of their landing spot. At the time he couldn't figure out how he knew that, but it seems the burn started a second or two too soon that Armstrong "felt" rather than "knew". Sure enough, the automatic landing was going to put them down short of where they intended to land into an uneven area strewn with rocks and obstacles that could have tipped over the lander, or made it impossible to lift off again. Armstrong disconnected the autopilot and manually flew the lander beyond the dangerous area to a spot that was suitable. They touched down with 30 seconds of fuel left.Polikarpov wrote:Now, is it me or did '16 have a lucky escape? Looks like they could have easily landed a couple of feet to the right and tipped into the crater the lander's shadow crosses.
Definitely can't call myself educated in the astronaut department.Rockie wrote: I saw an interview with Buzz Aldrin a little while ago discussing the Apollo 11 landing. He said when they started the de-orbit burn Neil Armstrong said immediately that they were going to be short of their landing spot. At the time he couldn't figure out how he knew that, but it seems the burn started a second or two too soon that Armstrong "felt" rather than "knew". Sure enough, the automatic landing was going to put them down short of where they intended to land into an uneven area strewn with rocks and obstacles that could have tipped over the lander, or made it impossible to lift off again. Armstrong disconnected the autopilot and manually flew the lander beyond the dangerous area to a spot that was suitable. They touched down with 30 seconds of fuel left.
Those guys had balls as big as houses.
I read that too and went WTH??? They were so short on funding they'd erase the tapes of the first landing on the moon? Conspiracy theorists unite, they actually photographed aliens!!!!NASA "loses" or "accidentally" erases moon landing master tapes.
Now Gillette...would Neil and Buzz not be the aliens in that situation, and those they encountered native (perhaps) to the moon????GilletteNorth wrote: Conspiracy theorists unite, they actually photographed aliens!!!!
There was no point, since the race to the moon was won, to go back there. That's actually the reason why the US decided to cancel the Apollo Program. They proved they were more advanced technologically than the Russians which was the whole point of going there. We found a new interest in the last few years to go back, to build a resupply station for ships going to Mars. And we will go back. If there is a will, and a need, there is a way, and the Americans proved that with the Apollo program.Dash-Ate wrote: The OP will still be saying this 50 years from now. Technology now is 10x better than in the 60s but no one goes to the moon. Just how did they travel 235,000 miles in one week? Tell us. Show us the amazing technology that wold be required.
Dozens of dead Russian Cosmonauts will tell you there is no way to get up there alive.
Show me the pictures of all the star constellations as taken by someone standing on the moon.
There aren't any!!!
NASA is a private corporation funded by the govt. If you believe everything that you see on TV...
For film cameras, a properly exposed moon shot with a 35mm SLR is around 1/60 f16 ASA100. For star photography, you have to open the shutter for several seconds at the widest aperture and I got the best results with higher speed film. This should answer your question.Dash-Ate wrote: Show me the pictures of all the star constellations as taken by someone standing on the moon.
There aren't any!!!
4 Days to get to the moon actually. I beleive most hove the hardware can be seen at the Smithsonian. Constelations cannot be seen in the photos because they were in daylight. Sun was too bright to see the stars.Dash-Ate wrote:The OP will still be saying this 50 years from now. Technology now is 10x better than in the 60s but no one goes to the moon. Just how did they travel 235,000 miles in one week? Tell us. Show us the amazing technology that wold be required.
Dozens of dead Russian Cosmonauts will tell you there is no way to get up there alive.
Show me the pictures of all the star constellations as taken by someone standing on the moon.
There aren't any!!!
NASA is a private corporation funded by the govt. If you believe everything that you see on TV...
Now that you know the truth about Apollo, I leave Mars Phoenix landing to you.Basically, pseudoscientists ignore huge gaping holes in their logic, and instead focus on small, niggling pieces that the debunker may not be familiar with. As I said above, when I write I go after the foundation of their claims, knowing the minor claims will fall away after the major ones are gone. But in a debate situation the pseudoscientists focus on the small claims, because in this way the real scientist can get bogged down in details. This way, the pseudoscientist can distract the listener from the real problems in their theory, and make it sound like they win. I have seen this countless times. Creationists are famous for it, for example.
So debating these people on the radio would be like digging a hole in water.
CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL!Dash-Ate wrote:IF THIS IS THE FIRST MAN WALKING ON THE MOON THEY WHO TOOK THIS PICTURE?
I'll bet the Israelis are behind it!Dash-Ate wrote:The OP will still be saying this 50 years from now. Technology now is 10x better than in the 60s but no one goes to the moon. Just how did they travel 235,000 miles in one week? Tell us. Show us the amazing technology that wold be required.
Dozens of dead Russian Cosmonauts will tell you there is no way to get up there alive.
Show me the pictures of all the star constellations as taken by someone standing on the moon.
There aren't any!!!
NASA is a private corporation funded by the govt. If you believe everything that you see on TV...
13 Didn't land. 14 landed where 13 would have landed at Fra Mauro.niss wrote:
Where is 13?
Small correction. They were actually going to land long. The way Armstrong knew about it, was that they had geographical points that they should pass over at a specific time. With the LEM face down during the initial stages of the Powered Decent burn they could look at the surface. He noticed they went by their 3 min point early and inferred they were going to land long.Rockie wrote:I saw an interview with Buzz Aldrin a little while ago discussing the Apollo 11 landing. He said when they started the de-orbit burn Neil Armstrong said immediately that they were going to be short of their landing spot. At the time he couldn't figure out how he knew that, but it seems the burn started a second or two too soon that Armstrong "felt" rather than "knew". Sure enough, the automatic landing was going to put them down short of where they intended to land into an uneven area strewn with rocks and obstacles that could have tipped over the lander, or made it impossible to lift off again. Armstrong disconnected the autopilot and manually flew the lander beyond the dangerous area to a spot that was suitable. They touched down with 30 seconds of fuel left.Polikarpov wrote:Now, is it me or did '16 have a lucky escape? Looks like they could have easily landed a couple of feet to the right and tipped into the crater the lander's shadow crosses.
Those guys had balls as big as houses.
|
Use AvCanada's information at your own risk!
We reserve the right to remove any messages that we deem unacceptable.
When you post a message, your IP is logged and may be provided to concerned parties where unethical or illegal
behavior is apparent.
All rights reserved.
