Well I saw an autobiography about Jim Lovell where he went from 13 to an adult after getting his fortune told by a machine at a carnival.
That guy had a crazy life.
Man on the Moon...?
- Thread starter coachdags
- Start date
Well I saw an autobiography about Jim Lovell where he went from 13 to an adult after getting his fortune told by a machine at a carnival.
That guy had a crazy life.
I have to admit, I'm part of the cover-up conspiracy. Every May I get my hush-money check from the government, usually about three or four weeks after I file my tax return...
I liken it to if you were to go from a really, really bright environment, then outside at midnight to look at stars. You wouldn't see any, until your eyes adjusted. Like your eyes, a camera's aperture has to adjust before it sees that faint light. The camera was adjusted to "see" the bright astronaut suits in the foreground, not the stars in the background.
You know what I think is interesting?
You never see Clark Kent and Superman at the same time. I'm not saying it proves or disproves anything, other than I think it's interesting.
Yep, they were pretty good, albert not as good as 13.
Apollos 1-6 dealt with the rise of NASA from humble beginnings in a barren desert to become a dark, brutal warlord that controlled the galaxy before eventual redemption by his son.
Apollos 7-9 were actually pretty good: Tom Hanks was tasked with destroying the One Ring in the fire of Mount Down. Along the way he was helped by Gandalf, Stephen Spielberg, and Ron Howard.
Apollos 10-12 were awesome. Matt Damon overcame his Streisand persona to kick some serious ***.
Those astronauts love their alcohol. I met Neil Armstrong in a bar here in Seattle (he'd gained 70 lbs, shrunk a few inches and forgot most of his childhood in Wapokoneta, OH, but he knew "Mr. Gorsky" so I'm sure it was him).
I also met Leon Spinks in the same bar. (I could have sworn the guy I saw boxing was black, but you Apollo fans know how poor technology was back in those days).
Buzz Aldrin, Ph
Since 1972, Aldrin has written many books and articles including Return to Earth, an account of his Apollo experiences and his subsequent breakdown. He has taught aerospace engineering at the University of North Dakota, served as chairperson of the National Space Society, and has lectured throughout the world on his unique perspective of America's future in space.
After reading this thread, I have a feeling that is exactly what some people expect.
Could moon landings have been faked? Some still think so - CNN.com
11% on the board maybe, 5% worse than the national average of 6% apparently?
Also, if this happens what will you conclude?
n its information campaign against Apollo's "debunkers," NASA may have a potent ace up its sleeve, however. Its Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is now circling the moon with powerful cameras, snapping crisp pictures that could reveal Apollo 11's Eagle lander squatting on the moon's surface.
Then again, conspiracy theorists may just say NASA doctored the photos.
"Will the LRO's incredibly high-resolution images of the lunar surface, including, eventually, the Apollo landing sites, finally quell the lunacy of the Moon Hoax believers? Obviously it won't," writes astronomer Phil Plait in his blog on Discover magazine's Web site. "These true believers don't live in an evidence-based world."
11% on the board maybe, 5% worse than the national average of 6% apparently?
Also, if this happens what will you conclude?
n its information campaign against Apollo's "debunkers," NASA may have a potent ace up its sleeve, however. Its Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is now circling the moon with powerful cameras, snapping crisp pictures that could reveal Apollo 11's Eagle lander squatting on the moon's surface.
Then again, conspiracy theorists may just say NASA doctored the photos.
"Will the LRO's incredibly high-resolution images of the lunar surface, including, eventually, the Apollo landing sites, finally quell the lunacy of the Moon Hoax believers? Obviously it won't," writes astronomer Phil Plait in his blog on Discover magazine's Web site. "These true believers don't live in an evidence-based world."
Fixed it for you. We're a smart bunch.
NASA doctored the photos. The article says what we'll say, so why ask the question?:wink:Also, if this happens what will you conclude?
n its information campaign against Apollo's "debunkers," NASA may have a potent ace up its sleeve, however. Its Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is now circling the moon with powerful cameras, snapping crisp pictures that could reveal Apollo 11's Eagle lander squatting on the moon's surface.
Then again, conspiracy theorists may just say NASA doctored the photos.
"Will the LRO's incredibly high-resolution images of the lunar surface, including, eventually, the Apollo landing sites, finally quell the lunacy of the Moon Hoax believers? Obviously it won't," writes astronomer Phil Plait in his blog on Discover magazine's Web site. "These true believers don't live in an evidence-based world."
Probably. But since we've never even been close to the moon, that will never happen, so I don't have to worry about it.:wink:So what would prove a negative, flying you personally to the moon to let you discover the items yourself??
The more you know:
A feather and a lead weight dropped from the same distance on the moon strike the surface at the same time.
cause knowledge is power!
A feather and a lead weight dropped from the same distance on the moon strike the surface at the same time.
cause knowledge is power!
This was post #55 and you clowns continued to debate? Consider the source; it is settled science.
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
Somehow, he ended up back in World War II, saving this one kid whose brothers had all been killed. Around the same time, he managed a women's baseball team, too.
That guy gets around like that, and we just sit around our computers. We need to get busy living.
One of the women on my staff does not believe in bears. Seriously. Thinks the ones in zoos are fake, and that they don't exist in nature.
Point being, there will always be some people that hold very strange beliefs simply because they want to, and not because they make any legitimate sense.
Point being, there will always be some people that hold very strange beliefs simply because they want to, and not because they make any legitimate sense.
As others have said, it's insanely expensive to go there, and there is little benefit, aside from bragging rights, in going there at the moment. Not to mention there just isn't that much public interest in it.
It isn't a question of computers, as it is of sheer physics. All the computers in the world don't give you the required amount of thrust to push an object to the moon. It is a complex problem in a lot of ways, but in a lot of other ways, it's really quite simple. We simply don't have a rocket powerful enough to put anything on the moon at the moment.
If you've seen a Saturn V up "close", you'll realize how mammoth a rocket has to be in order to push something even as small as the Apollo modules to the moon. We don't have anything approaching that anywhere else on earth at the moment.
It's not a matter of focus, but of exposure. Exposure time is directly related to aperture and sensitivity of the film. To properly expose the very bright objects in the foreground, the shutter speed has to be pretty fast. This precludes the much weaker stars in the background from being properly exposed.
400,000 people worked, in one way or another, on the Apollo program. This was also the 1960s, and people died of accidents all the time, in particular test pilots who were pushing the envelopes of what man-made machines could do, often with little or no information about the problems they were trying to address. You'll notice that we haven't gone as far or as fast in the 40 years since the mid-60s as we did in the 20 years leading up to it.
The landing sites were pretty far apart - hundreds of miles at least, if not thousands. I know the moon is much smaller than the earth, but those are still vast distances to drive, even with a modern car, let alone a rickety, electric moon vehicle.
There isn't much point in exploring areas you've already been, and with the tremendous cost of sending people there in the first place, there really is a requirement to maximize your time on the moon.
Not to mention that, while this was technically rocket science, they were not nearly as accurate in terms of choosing a landing area than we like to think. They got "close" to where they wanted to go, but simply had to pick a spot. Even landing within rover distance to a previous mission would have been challenging at best. It was a much easier job to time the burns to leave moon orbit and earth orbit and then make mid-course corrections as necessary in order to keep things on track. This is one area where modern computers could probably help immensely, but at the time, it was a sacrifice they could make, since the point was to land there and come back. Not to land in a precise location and then come back.
