...with our technology, we should be able to visually confirm the landing sites from the hardware that was supposedly "left" behind,,,i.e. the landing gear of the LEM etc....
Not as easy as it appears. Without getting into too much detail, it is far easier to see a white spot against a dark background, than the other way around. You can easily prove that too yourself with your eyes, and a camera. Remember to use full sunlight for the bright background. The Hubble telescope would not be able to resolve a LEM on the moon, even without the contrast issue. If the LEM was in deep shadow and on fire, then it could see it. It wouldn't look like much though.
What speed do you need to get to low Earth orbit starting from the surface of the Earth (ignoring air resistance)? Answer: 8133 m/s (18,136 mph)
What speed to you need to go up into space (but not orbit)? Answer: 2,715 m/s = 6054 mph.
What is the escape velocity for Earth? Answer: 11,176 m/s (24,923 mph).
How much do you need per kilogram of mass to get into LEO (Low Earth Orbit)? Answer: 3.31 x 10⁷ Joules.
How fast are you moving due to the rotation of the Earth (at the equator)? Answer: 465.1 m/s (1037 mph)
What is the difference in speeds to get to LEO at the equator vs. the North pole? Answer: 7667.6 m/s (17,099 mph) at the equator and 8133 m/s (18,136 mph) at the North Pole.
What is the difference is speeds to get to LEO at sea level vs. a mountain? Answer: From sea-level it would be 8133 m/s (18,136 mph) and from Mt Everest it would be 8121.99 m/s (18,112 mph)
My question to the whole gaw crowd is??. We are so goo at detecting and pointing out lies… why is this off limits? This is the bridge too far…. No one crosses it… I call bs.
I'm not sure what to say. GAW has a long history of banning "moon landing hoax" retards. How does GAW attract fuckwits like you??
India has been to the moon. China has. Russia has. USA has. We have a LRO in orbit around the moon right now. It's just lunacy (see what I did there)... HOW does GAW fall into these stupid holes all the time??
We haven't been to the moon again because WHY? Black budgets off the military drove the USA to focus on low Earth orbit. The end.
Ponder your existence.
C5*
If you want to appeal your ban, please read the rules and reply to this message.
Assuming the Americans had technological dominance to go there repeatedly and discovered no resources…they would not stop due to cost. Go look at NASA’s annual budget today. They get that much to make fuzzy pictures of stars and develop aerospace tech.
At a minimum, the strategic advantage in having a moon base before anyone could touch it would go lightyears beyond what any budget would justify. America could have build a remote surveillance base, a missile launch site or simply expanded it’s territory. Imagine a M.A.D. scenario, the moon base would be untouchable and provide the last territory to fight back. No one would ever attack the united states in that case.
You have no idea how big the expenses were on the Apollo program...when the dollar was worth 10 times more than it is now. Nothing political happens without costs, and the Apollo program had outrun its popular support. The budgets responded accordingly and shifted to low-Earth-orbit missions.
There is no strategic advantage to having a Moon base, science fiction stories to the contrary. Takes too much time to go to and from. Better surveillance at close range. Easier missile launch from Earth surface (and faster). Any Moon base would be easy to snuff out (just nuke it directly, or nuke the logistical launch centers on Earth).
We went there, repeatedly. It is now a question to see whether NASA or SpaceX is first to return.
Since we’ve had aspirations of going to Mars for almost as long as we wanted to go to the moon, one would think we would want to put a base on the moon so that we could research what’s needed to get to Mara. But, alas, we’ve never gone back since the 60’s. 🤷♂️
Which is one of the (good) reasons for the effort to return. The Moon is a good environment to put colonization technology to the test, before entrusting a Mars base with it. At least if there is a catastrophe on the Moon, the trip home is only a few days. If there is a catastrophe on Mars, very bad scenario.
I tend to think that the perils of a long voyage are underrated, however. Too much glib thinking. It's more like a trip to Antarctica by sailing ship in terms of isolation and beyond human reach.
No. The astronauts were moving in real speed as was everything else, but objects dropped more slowly. Fine grit tossed up by the Moonbuggy's wheels did not form a dust cloud. It all dropped like sand.
And don't get sideswiped by "there are no stars!" You have your choice with any camera: set the aperture small enough that you don't get washed out by the brightly lit part of your scene, or set the aperture large enough that you will detect the faintly lit part of your scene. You can't get both at the same time. (Ever been at a nighttime baseball game, brightly lit by the field lights? Overhead is the night sky. In the midst of all that brightness can you look up and see stars? Not me.) Anyway, the whole point of the photography was to capture the scenes on the surface, and the stars were too faint under that choice.
Also notice how close the horizon appears. The Moon is smaller than the Earth by quite a bit.
And there is lunar grit. Unique, found nowhere else, and actually quite a problem for the astronauts (clings, gets into seals, stinks).
Simply take one of these mirrored telescopes sitting on top of a mountain and point it at the moon and begin taking pics of the Apollo landing sites. Bet they won't find a thing.
I believe it's more likely that our lying, thieving government that had just murdered JFK pocketed the billions in space research for themselves and then gave us a Stanley Kubrick-directed moon landing livestream hoax in return.
EDIT: You are not permitted to question the moon landing narrative, folks. I am now banned because of this comment. The government murdered our President, stole an election from another, are actively trying to kill us with genocidal vaccines, but they are totally 100% telling the truth about this one single thing and it's a ban-worthy offense to say otherwise. Sad to see folks claiming to be part of an alleged "Great Awakening" still believe the official government narrative about anything. We have a long ways to go before people really wake up.
Whenever I see the phrase "irrefutable proof," it is a tip-off to me that the person who demands it is demanding in bad faith, because they can always retreat into the position that the proof is not irrefutable. We have multiple witnesses and participants, sworn testimony, photographic evidence, communication records, visible artifacts remaining, and surface samples...and this is not "irrefutable proof"? Well, then, what do you want beyond that?
I’d like someone to explain wny there is anything other than a full moon during the day. The moon and sun are in the same sky together. Direct line of sight between each luminary.
During the day, there should only rarely be a full Moon, seen near sundown or sunset. Most of the time, it should be in intermediate phases or a new Moon (fully dark). You don't see it under those conditions because the daylight fills in the shadow and the Moon is faint to see. Usually an oblique line of sight to the Moon from Earth.
A full moon is fully lit when it is approximately on the opposite side of the earth than the sun. The sun is approx directly behind you when you see a full moon. It is shining on the opposite side of the earth to where you are. It is more or less night time where you are.
I don't know why the middle of the moon is not much brighter than the sides. I guess it has something to do with the wide dispersion angles of the light hitting rough matt moon rock and dust.
It's the geometry of a scattering surface. The angle of incidence gets smaller toward the edge of the Moon, but the actual illuminated area gets broader in inverse proportion, so the apparent brightness is the same out to the edge.
...with our technology, we should be able to visually confirm the landing sites from the hardware that was supposedly "left" behind,,,i.e. the landing gear of the LEM etc....
We do.
Anyone can point a laser at the reflectors we left there.
Anyone.
Now.
...mirrors can be deposited by unmanned landing craft ...
...I want to see photographs of the technical artifacts of LEMs and the Rovers....
...why is that so hard to produce?
It isn't. I recently saw on the internet a telephoto of the landing site and upon sufficient zooming, one could see the LEM still sitting there.
...I would so love to see this photograph...
...please forward me a link to it when you find time to....
It was a video of the zoomed image. I can't now recall where I saw it, but it was within a few weeks ago.
Not as easy as it appears. Without getting into too much detail, it is far easier to see a white spot against a dark background, than the other way around. You can easily prove that too yourself with your eyes, and a camera. Remember to use full sunlight for the bright background. The Hubble telescope would not be able to resolve a LEM on the moon, even without the contrast issue. If the LEM was in deep shadow and on fire, then it could see it. It wouldn't look like much though.
Also, going to the moon requires far more energy and resources than low earth orbit. You need to reach escape velocity to get to the moon, and carry enough fuel to achieve orbit and maneuver once you get there. https://rjallain.medium.com/calculating-the-speed-to-get-to-low-earth-orbit-and-other-calculations-c4df88f4cd2e
My question to the whole gaw crowd is??. We are so goo at detecting and pointing out lies… why is this off limits? This is the bridge too far…. No one crosses it… I call bs.
I guess it's strategic to leave some lies till last!
I don't think we went to the moon. We'd a gone back many times if we had.
EDITING TO ADD THIS MESSAGE I RECEIVED:
You are banned from The Great Awakening. notification from GreatAwakening's Moderators sent 16 hours ago You are now banned for 4 days.
*https://greatawakening.win/p/16b68tOLTi/x/c/4TtqyqZDCFR
I'm not sure what to say. GAW has a long history of banning "moon landing hoax" retards. How does GAW attract fuckwits like you??
India has been to the moon. China has. Russia has. USA has. We have a LRO in orbit around the moon right now. It's just lunacy (see what I did there)... HOW does GAW fall into these stupid holes all the time??
We haven't been to the moon again because WHY? Black budgets off the military drove the USA to focus on low Earth orbit. The end.
Ponder your existence.
C5*
If you want to appeal your ban, please read the rules and reply to this message.
We did.
We stopped after Apollo 17.
Because there's nothing there.
We had to beat the Russians for bragging rights.
We did.
Nothing of value up there.
Waste of money to go again.
Assuming the Americans had technological dominance to go there repeatedly and discovered no resources…they would not stop due to cost. Go look at NASA’s annual budget today. They get that much to make fuzzy pictures of stars and develop aerospace tech.
At a minimum, the strategic advantage in having a moon base before anyone could touch it would go lightyears beyond what any budget would justify. America could have build a remote surveillance base, a missile launch site or simply expanded it’s territory. Imagine a M.A.D. scenario, the moon base would be untouchable and provide the last territory to fight back. No one would ever attack the united states in that case.
We never went there…
Edit: banned for this comment
You have no idea how big the expenses were on the Apollo program...when the dollar was worth 10 times more than it is now. Nothing political happens without costs, and the Apollo program had outrun its popular support. The budgets responded accordingly and shifted to low-Earth-orbit missions.
There is no strategic advantage to having a Moon base, science fiction stories to the contrary. Takes too much time to go to and from. Better surveillance at close range. Easier missile launch from Earth surface (and faster). Any Moon base would be easy to snuff out (just nuke it directly, or nuke the logistical launch centers on Earth).
We went there, repeatedly. It is now a question to see whether NASA or SpaceX is first to return.
Since we’ve had aspirations of going to Mars for almost as long as we wanted to go to the moon, one would think we would want to put a base on the moon so that we could research what’s needed to get to Mara. But, alas, we’ve never gone back since the 60’s. 🤷♂️
EDIT: Wow, banned for this comment.
Which is one of the (good) reasons for the effort to return. The Moon is a good environment to put colonization technology to the test, before entrusting a Mars base with it. At least if there is a catastrophe on the Moon, the trip home is only a few days. If there is a catastrophe on Mars, very bad scenario.
I tend to think that the perils of a long voyage are underrated, however. Too much glib thinking. It's more like a trip to Antarctica by sailing ship in terms of isolation and beyond human reach.
For argument's sake, the US could beat the Russians for bragging rights much more cheaply and safely by pretending to go the moon.
Why didn't the Soviets call us out on it?
I don't think it suited them to do so. I think there was benefit to both sides in not exposing the US
Russia is doing so now!
The video from the Moon included physical effects that could only have occurred on the Moon (vacuum and low gravity). Learn more, fantasize less.
Do you mean that the footage looked slowed down?
No. The astronauts were moving in real speed as was everything else, but objects dropped more slowly. Fine grit tossed up by the Moonbuggy's wheels did not form a dust cloud. It all dropped like sand.
I'll bear that in mind next time I review the footage. Thanks fren
And don't get sideswiped by "there are no stars!" You have your choice with any camera: set the aperture small enough that you don't get washed out by the brightly lit part of your scene, or set the aperture large enough that you will detect the faintly lit part of your scene. You can't get both at the same time. (Ever been at a nighttime baseball game, brightly lit by the field lights? Overhead is the night sky. In the midst of all that brightness can you look up and see stars? Not me.) Anyway, the whole point of the photography was to capture the scenes on the surface, and the stars were too faint under that choice.
Also notice how close the horizon appears. The Moon is smaller than the Earth by quite a bit.
And there is lunar grit. Unique, found nowhere else, and actually quite a problem for the astronauts (clings, gets into seals, stinks).
Correct. The popular enthusiasm had waned and President Nixon had other fish to fry, so he diverted the funding to development of the Space Shuttle.
Repent.
Simply take one of these mirrored telescopes sitting on top of a mountain and point it at the moon and begin taking pics of the Apollo landing sites. Bet they won't find a thing.
Except that they can and they do. How much are you willing to lose in your bet?
I believe it's more likely that our lying, thieving government that had just murdered JFK pocketed the billions in space research for themselves and then gave us a Stanley Kubrick-directed moon landing livestream hoax in return.
EDIT: You are not permitted to question the moon landing narrative, folks. I am now banned because of this comment. The government murdered our President, stole an election from another, are actively trying to kill us with genocidal vaccines, but they are totally 100% telling the truth about this one single thing and it's a ban-worthy offense to say otherwise. Sad to see folks claiming to be part of an alleged "Great Awakening" still believe the official government narrative about anything. We have a long ways to go before people really wake up.
And you would be hilariously wrong. So much for ignorance and paranoid fantasy.
Whenever I see the phrase "irrefutable proof," it is a tip-off to me that the person who demands it is demanding in bad faith, because they can always retreat into the position that the proof is not irrefutable. We have multiple witnesses and participants, sworn testimony, photographic evidence, communication records, visible artifacts remaining, and surface samples...and this is not "irrefutable proof"? Well, then, what do you want beyond that?
They couldn't have landed on the moon because it's flat and they would have slid right off... ~{°¡°}~
That's if the moon exists at all!
Not sure if you’re joking or not.
I’d like someone to explain wny there is anything other than a full moon during the day. The moon and sun are in the same sky together. Direct line of sight between each luminary.
During the day, there should only rarely be a full Moon, seen near sundown or sunset. Most of the time, it should be in intermediate phases or a new Moon (fully dark). You don't see it under those conditions because the daylight fills in the shadow and the Moon is faint to see. Usually an oblique line of sight to the Moon from Earth.
The moon is lit fully by the sun, but we see it from the side so to speak unless it's on the opposite side of the earth to the sun
So why is a full moon fully lit from our perspective, why does it not show a spherically shadow? It illuminates more like a paper plate.
A full moon is fully lit when it is approximately on the opposite side of the earth than the sun. The sun is approx directly behind you when you see a full moon. It is shining on the opposite side of the earth to where you are. It is more or less night time where you are.
Oh I see what you mean.
I don't know why the middle of the moon is not much brighter than the sides. I guess it has something to do with the wide dispersion angles of the light hitting rough matt moon rock and dust.
It's the geometry of a scattering surface. The angle of incidence gets smaller toward the edge of the Moon, but the actual illuminated area gets broader in inverse proportion, so the apparent brightness is the same out to the edge.