They faked it ! The Moon Landing !!

Was the Lunar Module powered only by batteries or did it use fuel cells as well or instead? What were the electrical energy requirements for the lunar stay? and what was the energy density of the cells?

Can someone please point me to information on these thing?

Thanks.

No, vibration moves the CAMERA. Please learn to read.

How would the stars look any different? You do know the closest ones are at best 4 light years away right? You really think they'll look any different 250,000 miles away which is LESS than the distance the Earth travels in a single night?

Prove it is shower curtain rods, constructuion paper, and foil. I'll bet you can't.

They did on Apollo 16. Didn't you know that already? You'd think the hoaxies would do the slightest bit of research.

It folded up and was stored on the outside. The LM DID increase in size. Basic research would have told you both those facts.

Its cute that you think it would look any different than it does from Earth orbit.

Its cute that you don't understand the difference between different types of radiation and flux rates. Really it is.

But of course, because Nasa says that the Apollo 16 star photos were taken by men on the moon doesn't mean that they necessarily were.

To you, you probably think that is real math.

Translation: Help! Google doesn't work for me! Either that or I'm too lazy and prefer others to do my work for me!

Yeah, cute innit?

I have spent considerable time trying to find this information without success, any pointers would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

The YouTube link might take you to videos where you'll find answers...

The Apollo Lunar Rover and dust arcs


[link to www.youtube.com]

By having access to reliable information on matters such at this allows us to analyse it for ourselves and hence be able to add weight to one side of the argument or the other in a calm and logically reasoned manner.

Prove the bolded part. Use some actual numbers. I'll bet you can't because visible light is only dmmed by around 15% going through the atmosphere. Good luck with that!

and what moved the ladder? and the source of your "vibration" was what?

Sorry, that response rates and F. You do not get funded.

Lunar orbiters can photograph far more of the Moon than a rover can.

The lunar landing sites have already beem imaged from orbit. Without wind and water there is no erosion. They haven't changed.

Now you change the subject. We have been back to the moon a couple of dozen times since Apollo. All unmaned. The argument is why haven't we sent men back to the Moon. The answer is, too expensive. Sending a robot on a one way mission to the Moon is much cheaper than sending men, food water, oxygen, return trip. And the stay would be longer. We already did the weekend visit. To spend more time will be very expensive.

And you never address the science. What science would you do? Science is more than taking a few photographs.

Nothing can be gained by doing another version of Apollo. You need more equipment. Longer stays. Doing deep core samples on the Moon would be useful, but it takes drilling crews years to send a drill down 7 or 8 kilometers on Earth. The deepest bore hole on Earth is around 12 kilometers. That took 19 years.

The problem is, you really don't know what you are talking about so your statements are not rational.

Try google.

Apollo Lunar Module fuel cells

My god you people are blithering idiots. What has that got to do with stars? Are you ADD?

This thread is immensely entertaining. I'm still waiting on an explanation for why one thinks the stars would look different from the Moon compared to low Earth orbit.

Last Edited by LHP598 on 03/09/2013 05:47 PM

Okay, thanks, so batteries only according to Wikipedia and this link has some interesting information

[link to docs.google.com (secure)]

(Google docs cache - live link gives Access Denied)

oohhhhh the one in 1973? hmmmm....39 years ago....I seee!

Show me the scenes in 2001 where these occur;

No stars.
"Cardboard" sets.

Or, if you want to be positive, show where THESE occur in 2001;

1/6 gravity.

The photos from the Mars rover look better than any photo I've seen of the moon via satellite. Ground shots of the landing sight would be fascinating.

What would really be interesting is to see ground-level photos of the lunar lander and other equipment left behind to see how they've fared from all this time.

If you think the idea is silly or fruitless, that's one thing. To say it's not rational at all seems a little to...dismissive.

useable verifiable pictures please. Not the tiny photoshop bs that showed up a few years ago! Look at the Mars Rover pics.....who wouldnt want some tasty pics of all the junk we "supposedly" left 40+ years ago. How about a study of the materials we left? How valuable would it be to know how it was affected by cosmic rays? How much less expensive it would be to put one on the Moon?
Again
Menow.....you are the Guy of this subject.
And like him you fail to impress!
Have fun lieing to another generation!!

OK. Please elaborate.



By about 20%.

The apparent magnitude scale is approximately x2.5 for each whole-number step. So a change of 20% would mean that if the lowest magnitude you could see on the surface was 6.5 (this is the actual number for best-case viewing conditions), in space you'd be able to see all the way down to magnitude 6.6

Incidentally, if you look at the context, Collins was in the middle of a question about an astronomical observation through a telescope -- not being asked about what he saw when walking around the surface.

Well, first off, this is a lie.

But the more interesting question is, what do you think would be unique about the stars as seen from the Moon? How would that be different from the stars seen from low Earth orbit?

I'd like to hear you explain in your own words.

2017 hmmm 4 years from now.