|
Post by Kiwi on Feb 16, 2007 7:32:38 GMT -4
Attempts were made from command modules to see the landing sites from orbit but none were successful at recognizing the LM. Dick Gordon, in Apollo 12's command module, Yankee Clipper, spied both the lunar module Intrepid and Surveyor 3 in the sextant from orbit — A Man on the Moon, Andrew Chaikin, Penguin, New York, 1994, page 268. This was portrayed in From the Earth to the Moon — Part 7 — That’s All There Is (times from the DVD): 0:24:17 Dick Gordon: I have Intrepid. I have Intrepid. 0:24:34 Dick Gordon: And I have Surveyor. I have Surveyor.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Feb 16, 2007 9:55:38 GMT -4
Thanks for that info, Kiwi. We can always count on you.
I was thinking along the lines of resolution of the shape of the LM like some HBs seem to want, as it is still outside of the range of practical ability fro lunar satellites. Does anyone know how good of a view Gorden actually had.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Feb 16, 2007 10:06:40 GMT -4
Apollo 12 missed only one of its pre-flight objectives. Colour TV documentation of surface activities was lost due to failure of the camera when pointed at either the sun or its reflection in the LM.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Feb 16, 2007 12:18:33 GMT -4
I was thinking along the lines of resolution of the shape of the LM like some HBs seem to want, as it is still outside of the range of practical ability fro lunar satellites. Does anyone know how good of a view Gorden actually had. I bet he was only able to detect the LM's elongated shadow (since the sun would have been low on the horizon), or maybe he saw sunlight reflecting off of it.
|
|
|
Post by tofu on Feb 16, 2007 12:44:18 GMT -4
if the rover has been sent to mars which is capable of sending back images from the surface, why can't N.A.S.A send one to the moon NASA **can** send one to the moon. And so can the ESA and Japan. Do you think that the ESA and Japan are also involved in the hoax? Or do you think there might be another reason that nobody has sent a rover? Which sounds more likely: a) that every European scientist cooperates with the Americans in keeping the hoax a secret. (keep in mind that Europe and the US are not very friendly lately. Europeans are happy to criticize the US about Kyoto, Iraq, and many other things. Do you believe that they are "afraid" to expose the US moon hoax?? Why??) or is this more likely: b) that it costs a lot of money to send even a robot to the moon, and nobody is willing to waste that much money. If there was a science objective (something to learn about the moon) then people would be willing to do it. But taking pictures of a flag is not a science objective. It's a big waste of money.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Feb 16, 2007 12:53:08 GMT -4
Why haven't the hoax theory believers pooled their money (and superior intellect : together to build a rover, probe, or telescope to prove the landing sites don't have any flags? Maybe they're in on the hoax too! ;D
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 16, 2007 13:08:34 GMT -4
Apollo 11 didn't land in its designed landing place, for which there was already some contextual information. They landed somewhere else. In order to reconstruct that context in which to interpret Apollo 11's findings and observations, it was suggested that a subsequent mission attempt to locate and photograph Apollo 11's landing site from orbit. This was not for publicity purposes, nor was there ever any attempt to photograph just the flag. Mission planners wanted aerial photographs of Tranqulity Base for reference purposes.
NASA's reputation is not at stake. Conspiracy theorists vastly overestimate how many people actually believe them.
More importantly, NASA is a public institution. It belongs to the American people, and what it does -- or fails to do -- reflects back on the public. It is not best to characterize it as some kind of ivory tower to which the rank and file American stands in opposition. NASA can only do what the public directs it to do. NASA cannot, on its own initiative, sponsor a new mission of any kind to the moon without public approval. So this is not a case where NASA needs to expend some modicum of effort to justify its claims to a skeptical public.
In fact, NASA tried to spend $15,000 to pay a noted space author to address the various conspiracy theories a few years back. The press reported the story and the public was so angry at what they felt was a waste of money that NASA withdrew their plans. The public has demonstrated they're not willing to spend even $15,000 of their money to refute hoax believers. It's hard to argue they'd be willing to spend a thousand times that much on robots or probes to verify Apollo.
The public is, however, willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on rovers to explore Mars. Mars is somewhat new territory.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Feb 16, 2007 13:38:18 GMT -4
Conspiracy theorists vastly overestimate how many people actually believe them. As demonstrated when Buzz Aldrin appeared on a UK chat show last week. With a small prompt from the host, the audience ended up chanting "shame on you" to Bart Sibrel.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 16, 2007 14:07:52 GMT -4
How far away from the planned landing site did Apollo 11 end up?
|
|
|
Post by brotherofthemoon on Feb 16, 2007 15:37:31 GMT -4
Why haven't the hoax theory believers pooled their money (and superior intellect : together to build a rover, probe, or telescope to prove the landing sites don't have any flags? Maybe they're in on the hoax too! ;D Wouldn't it have to conform to HB engineering standards? -Giant solid-state computers - Nostromo-esque landing gear -Several feet of lead shielding -A special camera that always faced the Earth -A crew compartment to hold a team of independent verifiers -Fuel pumps that can handle 6,000 pounds of fuel in a second -A giant flame-spitting rocket that produced a continuous thrust of 50,000 pounds -Wings for flying through the scorching radiation hell of the lunar vacuusphere
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Feb 16, 2007 15:58:28 GMT -4
You're right, of course. They would attempt to build the probe the way they think it should be built, and when it's too heavy to even get off the ground they would say "See! it's not possible to go to the moon."
Maybe they should build a probe the way NASA would do it and then see if that would work.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 16, 2007 16:17:35 GMT -4
How far away from the planned landing site did Apollo 11 end up? Something like 4 miles, IIRC.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 16, 2007 17:36:49 GMT -4
Thanks, Jay!
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Feb 16, 2007 22:10:51 GMT -4
Attempts were made from command modules to see the landing sites from orbit but none were successful at recognizing the LM. Dick Gordon, in Apollo 12's command module, Yankee Clipper, spied both the lunar module Intrepid and Surveyor 3 in the sextant from orbit — A Man on the Moon, Andrew Chaikin, Penguin, New York, 1994, page 268. This was portrayed in From the Earth to the Moon — Part 7 — That’s All There Is (times from the DVD): 0:24:17 Dick Gordon: I have Intrepid. I have Intrepid. 0:24:34 Dick Gordon: And I have Surveyor. I have Surveyor. From the Apollo 12 Mission Report: Side note: The passive voice is to be shunned.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Feb 17, 2007 5:32:33 GMT -4
How far away from the planned landing site did Apollo 11 end up? The intended landing area was a skinny elipse with a length of a little over half a degree of lunar longitude, but Eagle landed a little outside it, roughly four miles further west than intended. I don't know the formula for working out the distance between coordinates on the moon, but someone may be able to do it from these figures: "Eagle landed in the Sea of Tranquility at zero degrees, 41 minutes and 15 seconds north latitude, and 23 degrees, 25 minutes and 45 seconds east longitude. In the flight plan the projected landing site had been zero degrees, 42 minutes and 50 seconds north latitude, and 23 degrees, 42 minutes and 28 seconds east longitude." -- First on the Moon - A Voyage with Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins, Edwin E. Aldrin Jr, written with Gene Farmer and Dora Jane Hamblin. Michael Joseph Ltd, London (1970), pages 433 and 434.
|
|