Moon landing
Forums › General Discussion › Moon landing-
Did Armstrong really land on the moon
-
Does your name mean butterfly in French?
-
Papillon wrote:
No, he rode the tour de FranceDid Armstrong really land on the moon
-
Yer doped out of his head. Lol
So why was the flag blowing when there's no wind on the moon. Where's the stars in the background ? Why is it pitch black. The shadows don't add up to the kind of shadow it should be from the light of the sun. When they were supposed to be three mile away from there landing spot they filmed there selves in the moon buggy, why were all the rocks exactly the same size and position as at the landing spot. Last one when blasting off the moon why didn't dust come up with the moon being covered in it.
We've been had
-
Did the moon ring like a bell when they landed?
-
So it might actually be cheese is what you are saying....
-
Flag never waved in the wind.
Sunlight is just as bright on the moon as it is here. More so in fact. Can you see stars with the sun up?
Light reflects on the moon just like everywhere else, providing some shadow fill, depending on the camera EV used.
Rocket thrust under the lander bell disperses to about 1.5 PSI by the time it hits the dust. Not much.
YOU'VE been had.
-
No. I'm saying it may be hollow. Like a space station... Google it
-
Lol heard this before
-
Most images you see from the moon landing have been enhanced for 'aesthetic purposes' if you see the originals the lighting is exactly as it should be
-
How would any of us now how the real lighting is on the moon. I don't know about you guys but I've seen the full moon reflect enough light to cast shadows here on earths once it is reflecting that much light who's to know if there would be any visible stars from the moon's surface.
-
I'd like you to prove that the moon even exists. How do you know that the "moon" isn't just a relative reflection of a gas pocket?!? Not only is there no such thing as the moon, alphabet soup has less Q's than any other letter (depending on the manufacturer)
-
〓 MR71VWBUS 〓 wrote:
I knew I was getting screwed out of my q'sI'd like you to prove that the moon even exists. How do you know that the "moon" isn't just a relative reflection of a gas pocket?!? Not only is there no such thing as the moon, alphabet soup has less Q's than any other letter (depending on the manufacturer)
-
★MΛΥΗΞΜ★ wrote:
👆So it might actually be cheese is what you are saying....
-
I've always been curious as to why little thrust is needed to escape the moon's gravitational pull. It takes a huge amount to get off Earth, but almost nothing to get off the moon. If the moon's gravity is 1/6 of Earth's, shouldn't you need close to 1/6 the thrust? Or is there some atmospherical explanation?
-
Boner Jams '03 wrote:
Take away about 99.9999% of the Earth weight of a fully fueled Saturn V rocket... Seems about right to me.I've always been curious as to why little thrust is needed to escape the moon's gravitational pull. It takes a huge amount to get off Earth, but almost nothing to get off the moon. If the moon's gravity is 1/6 of Earth's, shouldn't you need close to 1/6 the thrust? Or is there some atmospherical explanation?
-
The flag has a crossbar that makes it stick out, like the penis of a confused young man in a gym locker room.
-
The answer is yes. With good timing and a decent telescope, a person can see the evidence themselves
-
Brown🎵Note😲 wrote:
I fail to see the math in that. 1/6 ^= .000001Boner Jams '03 wrote:
Take away about 99.9999% of the Earth weight of a fully fueled Saturn V rocket... Seems about right to me.I've always been curious as to why little thrust is needed to escape the moon's gravitational pull. It takes a huge amount to get off Earth, but almost nothing to get off the moon. If the moon's gravity is 1/6 of Earth's, shouldn't you need close to 1/6 the thrust? Or is there some atmospherical explanation?
-
Saturn 5 = 6.2 million pounds
Ascent module = 10,000 pounds (on earth) = 1,666 pounds on the moondo the math
-
The moon only as one source of light. (Sun) but the shadows weren't parallel they were pointing to different directions
-
Brown🎵Note😲 wrote:
Also they took a pick of the earth. Not 1 star in the sky??Flag never waved in the wind.
Sunlight is just as bright on the moon as it is here. More so in fact. Can you see stars with the sun up?
Light reflects on the moon just like everywhere else, providing some shadow fill, depending on the camera EV used.
Rocket thrust under the lander bell disperses to about 1.5 PSI by the time it hits the dust. Not much.
YOU'VE been had.
-
Ojibwe wrote:
Makes more sense. I guess the added fuel weight is going to make it something like 1,000 times harder to leave Earth than the moon.Saturn 5 = 6.2 million pounds
Ascent module = 10,000 pounds (on earth) = 1,666 pounds on the moondo the math
-
Ｃｏｐｐｅｒ Ｔｏｐ wrote:
What telescope is there that can see the flag on the moon? Not even the Hubble can do that...The answer is yes. With good timing and a decent telescope, a person can see the evidence themselves
-
Papillon wrote:
Not true, the moon itself reflects so much light, a tall mountain or high-lipped crater can cast a conflicting shadow. Much like if the aforementioned confused young man in the male'a locker room at the health club had dipped his erect phallus into sparkly paint.The moon only as one source of light. (Sun) but the shadows weren't parallel they were pointing to different directions
-
YOU wrote:
Or are you answering vwbus about evidence of the moon existing? In which case a cheap scope or the naked eye would work lolＣｏｐｐｅｒ Ｔｏｐ wrote:
What telescope is there that can see the flag on the moon? Not even the Hubble can do that...The answer is yes. With good timing and a decent telescope, a person can see the evidence themselves
-
Of course a lunar photo will not record stars. A correct exposure set to capture a brightly lit moonscape will not record dim stars. To correctly expose for stars a wider and longer exposure is needed. At that exposure the landscape would be a washed out white blob. It is very basic photography 101.
-
Why don't you look at Mythbuster's special episode on this subject?
-
Ojibwe wrote:
Hence my post earlier, and reinforced here with someone that knows something about photography.Of course a lunar photo will not record stars. A correct exposure set to capture a brightly lit moonscape will not record dim stars. To correctly expose for stars a wider and longer exposure is needed. At that exposure the landscape would be a washed out white blob. It is very basic photography 101.
-
🔥💩 wrote:
It's just because I'm old. We used to have to set the exposure on cameras. :)Ojibwe wrote:
Hence my post earlier, and reinforced here with someone that knows something about photography.Of course a lunar photo will not record stars. A correct exposure set to capture a brightly lit moonscape will not record dim stars. To correctly expose for stars a wider and longer exposure is needed. At that exposure the landscape would be a washed out white blob. It is very basic photography 101.
-
Ojibwe wrote:
HA! .000268817 the weight! 99.999% was a pretty good guess! I was off by only 62 pounds! (I'm sure there is lots of rounding, but still!)Saturn 5 = 6.2 million pounds
Ascent module = 10,000 pounds (on earth) = 1,666 pounds on the moondo the math
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC