Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Sorry, I don't know whether you're joking or crazy.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
MOON Landing?
- Thread starter Comet
- Start date
Sorry, I don't know whether you're joking or crazy.
Shermana
Heretic
Let me break this down for you.
Do you know what stars are? You should be able to see them in this picture. But you don't. Kapiesce?
Here's another.
See how there's no stars?
Now perhaps you might want to actually answer the question instead of the ad hom, just saying.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Let me break this down for you.
Do you know what stars are? You should be able to see them in this picture. But you don't. Kapiesce?
Sorry, I still can't tell whether you're kidding around or nuts.
Shermana
Heretic
Well I can tell you're obviously trying to avoid the question and resorting to Ad hom for some reason. I guess we can all infer that you have no idea what stars are or why they should be in the picture then. If you don't know the answer, you can just avoid responding too.
silvermoon383
Well-Known Member
There are no stars in Lunar photos because of the way cameras work. Tonight when the stars are out, turn on all the lights in and outside of your house and take a picture of it (make sure there's plenty of sky in the picture.) Just like the Lunar pictures you won't see any stars.
Why? Because the camera was set to take a good picture of the brightly-lit house. Stars are FAR dimmer than a fully lit structure (or astronaut in the case of the Lunar pics) so the camera shutter isn't open long enough for the stars to be recorded by the CCD chip (or film if you're using an old film camera.) If you set the camera so that the shutter stays open long enough to record the stars the brightness of the house will be so overpowering that you'll lose the picture entirely or have it be one big blurry mess where the house is.
Why? Because the camera was set to take a good picture of the brightly-lit house. Stars are FAR dimmer than a fully lit structure (or astronaut in the case of the Lunar pics) so the camera shutter isn't open long enough for the stars to be recorded by the CCD chip (or film if you're using an old film camera.) If you set the camera so that the shutter stays open long enough to record the stars the brightness of the house will be so overpowering that you'll lose the picture entirely or have it be one big blurry mess where the house is.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
I want to answer the question. I really do, but I'm the victim of a super-secret CIA conspiracy, funded by the Masons and the Tri-Lateral Commission, which is testing out the effectiveness of mind control techniques on US citizens. Of course, the program is actually being run by representatives of the greys posing as high ranking members of the Mossad.
Shermana
Heretic
It's not impossible to get stars to show up in pictures. And why would we compare this situation to a fully lit house exactly?
You don't work for JPL by chance do you?
Shermana
Heretic
I meet more and more MK-ULTRA victims every day.
Even the most highly powered telescope in our possession could still only look at the surface of the moon with a resolution in terms of feet or meters -- imagine composing a picture where the pixels are about a square foot. It isn't possible to see an object as small as a flag in enough detail.
However, we have something better: we left behind laser retroreflectors on the moon. If you have a precise and powerful enough laser and you point it at one of said reflectors you might be able to do something cool like, I dunno, measure the distance between Earth and Luna very accurately (since that's what NASA does with the retroreflectors they left there
)If you are TRULY skeptical about the moon landing, as far as I know the use of a laser laboratory on the retroreflectors has been done for the public on request -- so you can find out "once and for all" by taking a trip to the nearest NASA center if you like. I guess a really determined skeptic could just say that the laser laboratory is part of the hoax, but in principle you could just ask for the retroreflectors' coordinates, build a nice laser, and do it yourself.
At the VERY least, it would be within the realm of possibility for an amateur to verify the existence of the retroreflectors even if hardcore skeptics might for some reason believe NASA's laser laboratories are phony.
Comet said:
This isn't meant to sound belittling, but do you have any idea what's required to put a person on Luna and then to get them back to Earth? No place else has the resources, the technology, or the experience other than NASA -- not even our allies in the European space agencies.
Yes, some countries are working on it now, but you have to keep in mind that it takes an unprecedented nation-wide effort to pull off a manned moon-landing: you can't ************ it like other countries are doing right now. Plus, a manned landing is the final step in a whole series of steps that a space agency has to master before attempting it -- each one an incredibly difficult task.
Comet said:
You seriously misunderstand the logistics behind this. First of all, an unmanned probe weighs a lot less -- orders of magnitude less. Why? Consider all the things you need if you have people: once outside the ionosphere astronauts face radiation from the sun that would kill them in minutes. Can you imagine how much heavy material (such as lead) is required to protect them? Have you ever picked up a bucket full of water and noted how surprisingly heavy it is? Can you imagine how much water it takes to keep a group of astronauts alive all the way to the moon and back?
I could go on, and on, and on, but I think you get my point: as soon as a mission becomes a MANNED mission, it takes soooooooo much to keep our frail little bodies alive that the mission suddenly becomes epic in scale compared to even the most expensive unmanned probe imaginable.
In short, you seriously underestimate exactly what's involved in putting a human into space, let alone to send them to Luna. It's not surprising at all that no other nations have caught up yet. The only reason America was able to do this was because of the HUGE, unprecedented budget, the national mobilization to accomplish it (no half-***ing it), and most of all the fact that American scientists had already made progress in all the different branches of science that have to come together to make it possible (aerodynamics, solid-state physics, rocket engineering, specialized forms of biology and chemistry, etc. -- it would be a long, long, ridiculous list if I were to actually try to come up with it, but you get the gyst).
Simple answer: America was able to because of money, the engineering expertise, the industrial infrastructure, the national unity, and the scientific background to pull it off. NO OTHER country has had that since -- but they are approaching it.
Comet said:
Do you have a realistic concept of how far away Mars is compared to the moon, and what it would take to get even a one way manned mission to Mars? I will give you the simple answer: because of the logistics/benefit ratio. The benefit isn't high enough yet.
Comet said:
The space shuttles weren't built for interplanetary body travel. They were high-orbit vessels by design; not space travel vessels. "Space shuttle" is thus a misnomer.
This is a common misunderstanding. The reason stars don't appear in the photos is because of how cameras work and because of the deep contrasts.
You won't see stars on near-earth space-walks (such as routine repairs) or even on earth-based sporting events.
The stars are there -- you just can't see them
True all dat.
Mars is a far more difficult challenge, even with another half century of technology.
It is exacerbated by our being increasingly risk averse, which imposes a high burden
upon the project. I say let's wait...perhaps until we have a space elevator to cut costs.
Remote sensing & telepresence currently offer far more bang for the buck.
As for the OP....yes, we went to the moon. To say we didn't would require a massive
conspiracy involving most of my former co-workers in the aerospace industry. Ain't likely.
Last edited:
Here's the distance between Earth and the moon. (Ignore the Mars, that's just there for size comparison):
Think it took long enough to scroll down just to get to the moon? Imagine going that distance in a tiny, tiny, tiny ship (smaller than even a fraction of one of the pixels in that picture).
Now try pasting ~199 more of those pictures, one on top of the other: that's the distance to Mars on average. (When Earth is at antihelion and Mars is at perihelion they are closer, but hopefully this gets my point across).
Think it took long enough to scroll down just to get to the moon? Imagine going that distance in a tiny, tiny, tiny ship (smaller than even a fraction of one of the pixels in that picture).
Now try pasting ~199 more of those pictures, one on top of the other: that's the distance to Mars on average. (When Earth is at antihelion and Mars is at perihelion they are closer, but hopefully this gets my point across).
Sorry just getting back now but looks like these were all answered.
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
Very very fake.Unless this is some kind of "artist's impression" or something, the Chinese don't seem to have this problem with their Satellites apparently.
Unless this is some kind of "artist's impression" or something, the Chinese don't seem to have this problem with their Satellites apparently.
That is a clear fake.
Shermana
Heretic
Explain how, the source of the photo is "Radio86". But if I said the pictures of the moon are "fake", would I be justified in just saying so without proving such as this?
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
First off, it's clearly a miniature made of plastic. The lens glare is wrong, and check out the reflections on the bottom half of the satellite.
Also, why is all the light in the front when the sun is being shown behind it?