Am 15.10.2011 22:46, schrieb Scout:
"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 15.10.2011 02:05, schrieb Scout:
"RD Sandman" wrote in message
...
"Scout" wrote in
:
"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 14.10.2011 18:37, schrieb Thomas Heger:
Am 14.10.2011 02:22, schrieb RHF:
On Oct 13, 11:48 am, Thomas wrote:
Am 13.10.2011 06:34, schrieb John Smith: On 10/12/2011 2:11 PM,
RHF wrote:
On Oct 12, 11:43 am, Thomas wrote:
Am 11.10.2011 18:50, schrieb SaPeIsMa:
--
..
Now please - think about the Apollo mission and how the Americans
got ripped off...
TH
TH, please tell us all just how the Apollo {Manned}
Mission to the Moon and Back was a 'rip-off' . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program
one does wonder . . . ~ RHF
Usually I don't maintain threads about guns. I have more interest in
the Apollo program and did my personal kind of 'research' on that
subject. (Mainly reading articles, following links on the internet,
watching films on YouTube and so forth).
Than I discuss my findings in forums like this one.
About the moon landing I have found a lot of inconsistencies within
the pictures taken.
My conclusion is, that these pictures were faked - not even
particularly sophisticated.
Since You most certainly don't trust me, I give you an example. (Only
one)
Look at this picture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ap...unar_orbit.jpg
It shows the lunar orbiter and the moon.
Since there is no other choice, the photo was obviously taken from
the landing module 'Eagle'.
But the term 'orbiter' refers to the orbit, this vehicle keeps, while
the lander lands.
Landing zone is usually below the orbit, hence the lander cannot take
photos from the orbiter with the moon in the back.
Certainly it can. Depending on the orbits used, the lander can easily
"descend" upon the orbiter. Indeed it is typical after undocking to go
to a slightly higher orbit to allow the orbiting craft/station to pass
under you (lower orbit being faster) until it clears the area, and
then when you come up on the point to begin your de-orbit burn the
area is clear, as no matter what you do at that point the other craft
is only going to move further away from you. If you tried to go a
lower orbit move ahead of the orbiting craft and then try to de-orbit
the orbiting craft would be catching up to you as you slowed and if
you accidently "ballooned up" a bit because your angle was slightly
off....you could possibly even run into each other. Not a good thing.
Nor do you want to wait forever for the gap to open up enough as your
time in space is strictly limited. Safer to simply move a bit higher,
let it pass under you and then there is no possibility of that
occurring. And gee, while you're sitting there you snap a picture out
the window and *poof* the planet/moon is in the background. SOB.
So if this is your BEST evidence, then this is really going to blow
your socks off.
"The International Space Station photographed following separation
from the Space Shuttle Endeavour in 2001."
http://news.medinfo.ufl.edu/articles...scovery-prompt
s-development-of-space-radiation-sensors/
Damn, is that the EARTH in the background?
"Last August, the Space Shuttle Endeavour crew captured this shot of
the International Space Station (ISS) against the backdrop of Planet
Earth. "
http://www.astronomy-pictures.net/na..._pictures.html
Damn, there it is again.
"International Space Station (ISS), March 2011, taken from the Space
Shuttle Discovery after undocking at the end of its mission to the
ISS"
http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/395325/enlarge
And again. Damn, one might even see this as a theme.
"The international space station, shown here in a photo taken from the
shuttle Discovery in June"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26441443/
So tell me does this mean the International Space Station is a fraud,
or shall we simply consider the possibility that what you see as
photographic flaws are really just a symptom of your ignorance of the
mechanics of space flight?
Scout....if he lived in the US he would be a 911 truther. He is purely
looking for some conspiracy to believe in.
Actually you can be a 'truther' and live outside the USA.
I did some sort of 'research' on 9-11, too. Actually I have an own
'theory', that circles around flight 93.
There seems to be a plot. This is the picture - or story- that was
intended, but not achieved. Actually Mr.Bush messed it up (in my
assumption).
It goes like this:
I call it a 'dance of planes and falling skyscrapers'.
The original plot was, that north tower gets hit, south tower gets
hit, pentagon gets hit.
South tower falls down, flight 93 hits building 7, north tower falls
down, building 7 falls down. (South tower had to fall first, because
building 7 is behind it).
Instead the flight was delayed and Mr. President so perplexed, that he
had to think about a solution very hard (and for several minutes).
Than he gave order to shoot down the plane, what was promptly done.
Flight 93 was apparently approaching Indean Lake Airpark, but didn't.
make it there and fell in parts into the Indean Lake.
Later on the WTC 7 fell without a hit.
yawn
And naturally you have some evidence to support this supposition?
You can also explain the bulging walls and other sides of structural
collapse noted prior to the building's collapse?
Actually I don't like the term 'truther'. And I don't like the term
'conspiracy theory', but these phrases are commonly used.
I think, if the government does does something illegal, than this
isn't a conspiracy. Its just illegal.
That and showing he has absolutely NO capacity for research,
investigation or critical thought.
I bet I can give him something that will really blow his mind.
In orbit you go faster to slow down, and slow down to go faster.
The decline from orbit is a difficult subject, too. Imagine a space
capsule in Moon orbit. There is no air. To land and to stop the craft
in horizontal movement, you need to fire the engine in reverse thrust
(against flight direction). This is not seen on any of the films or
pictures.
Well, let's see. The people in the lander are going to be strapped down
and all they could take a picture of in any event would be a view out
the front of the lander.
The orbiter meanwhile is now ahead of the lander and the moment you
fired the engines on the lander would rapidly move away. Short of a
really high power telephoto, you couldn't take a meaningful picture of
the lander from the orbiter during the de-orbit burn, nor any particular
reason to do so. After all I doubt some moron may years in the future
would contend the whole thing was faked simply because they didn't take
a picture just for him.
And it is - of course - difficult and fuel consuming.
Yep, which is why weight was such an issue.
The opposite is even more difficult and that is to restart and making
the rendezvous with the orbiter.
No more than any of the other times that spacecraft have met up in
space, and from the moon it would actually be easier since you would
have no air currents to throw you off your course during launch.
This is next to impossible, because there is no assistance from the
ground, helping to correct the flight path (nobody there, on moon
surface).
Don't need it. One craft knows exactly where they are, the other knows
where they are, the rest is just math.
Well, I would agree to 'just math and knowing where things are'.
But that 'just math' is quite challenging, if you have only a
handcranked 'computer' with a few k Ram.
And knowing where everything is is difficult, too. Today they have GPS,
that would help a lot - if installed at the moon.
But without radar and satellite navigation things are VERY difficult.
And completely impossible is, to store the needed fuel in a single
craft. (No gas station there, neither).
Actually with the small gravity well of the moon and no atmosphere it's
quite possible.
See the gravity well of the Earth is some 22 TIMES greater than is the
gravity well of the moon.
Here's a nice video with graphics to explain this to you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBQHtF3WhMw
Further the lander doesn't even have to climb all the way out of that
well. It only has to reach a very low orbit to meet up with the orbiter
which then provides the rest of the thrust needed to return to Earth.
Heck, the orbiter's orbit was generally so low that it would have been
within the atmosphere around the Earth. But since the moon has no
atmosphere you could orbit at almost any height, as shown by the recent
orbits just 13 miles up (ie 69,000 feet) below the service ceiling of
many military aircraft.
So combine a shallow gravity well, with low orbit and what do you have?
Answer - you need very little delta V to land or launch for said orbit
around a body without an atmosphere.
Once again, I will simply note that all you are showing is your
ignorance of the mechanics of space flight, not any flaws in what NASA
did, or didn't do.
Actually the gravity on Moon is very low. Agreed..
But you make the same mistake as the NASA guys. That is messing up
'inertia' and 'weight'.
In Germany we had pounds before, but now use the SI-system of units.
With this it is more easy to see: Weight is measured in Newton (in lbs.
in the US) and mass in kilograms (in lbs. in the US).
To accelerate a mass to a certain speed, the needed energy does not
depend on weight, but on mass and the needed velocity. That velocity is
orbital speed for the moon's gravitational field.
For Earth orbit you need much faster flight than you would need to stay
in orbit around the moon, but nevertheless it is quite fast. On Earth it
took a Saturn V rocket, to lift the craft into orbit. On the Moon it
would take less fuel, but way more, than the few gallons, they had in
the lander.
TH