|
Post by gwiz on Jan 3, 2007 12:21:51 GMT -4
Another thing that really bothers me in the moon lander is this: Was the moon lander designed for carrying the Lunar rover or was the Lunar rover designed to fit into the Moon Lander. i think for the answer on that a really easy question pop-up. The LM was designed first, the four corner bays were designed to carry equipment that could be accessed by astronauts on the lunar surface. The LRV was subsequently designed to be carried on one of these corners, with equipment previously located there switched to other locations to make room. Any qualified geologist from any country can apply to NASA for an Apollo moon sample to test. I believe they hand out several hundred samples a year. Wrong. The LM had a steerable high-gain antenna, as did the LRV. In addition, a large antenna could be deployed on the lunar surface.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jan 2, 2007 11:12:14 GMT -4
A crater of Bob B's image is structured by part of circle shape. I have been claim that crater's bottom is mortar shape. And you will of course provide the evidence to support this claim. You do realise that for your 3D model to have any validity, it will have to have some viewing angle from which it will match the photo exactly.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jan 2, 2007 10:09:09 GMT -4
To Lunar Orbit. I want to adopt a different method from Bob's method if I do solve "LRV's bottom out problem" anyway. Is time limit one week? It's too short to me. I hope you give me one month. You made this claim and repeated it often, but it will take you a month to do a simple sketch to back it up? Why didn't you do the research before you made the claim?
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jan 2, 2007 5:38:12 GMT -4
Now matter how much evidence was provided many AB would still believe apollo. I for one have set out what it would take to change my mind - see this thread. What is your answer to the "key question"?
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Dec 30, 2006 11:57:42 GMT -4
Hi , Bob B. Your image cannot make right and left wheels' tracks. How were they made? KJ, when did you lose all your visual-spacial skills?
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Dec 11, 2006 10:43:57 GMT -4
Near the part of 1/4 of diameter depth does not change so much. Could you explain how you estimate how far into the crater the rover wheel went and what was the depth of the crater at that distance in?
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Dec 11, 2006 9:30:59 GMT -4
But the crater we are discussing in the context of the Lunar Rover is one of the small bowl-shaped ones, shallower near the edge where the Rover crossed it than in the middle.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Dec 11, 2006 8:38:13 GMT -4
Because surface of moon was very hard and strong impact , the big crater has smooth horizontal bottom. Because the weak impact can't reach to a hard base the small crater looks the earthenware mortar. Not really. All fresh craters are pretty much bowl shaped, but very large ones experience subsequent isostatic adjustment that flattens them out.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Dec 7, 2006 9:03:13 GMT -4
Ignoring the question of the relevance of the mortar to an impact crafter, it certainly looks to me like the depth varies. Bit difficult to attach the rim to the centre if it didn't.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Nov 28, 2006 9:44:14 GMT -4
10^20 cosmic dusts were poured to the earth from space during a year. Therefore there was enough cosmic dusts to make of 'the moon rocks'. The phrase that comes to mind is "completely lost the plot".
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Nov 27, 2006 13:08:26 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Nov 27, 2006 4:10:36 GMT -4
The first one, in the December 1969 National Geographic, pages 788-791, is called "What the Moon Rocks Tell Us" by Kenneth F. Weaver, who wrote many excellent articles about the moon for National Geographic over the years. The second, in the September 1973 National Geographic, pages 309-325, also by Kenneth F. Weaver, has photos of rocks, details of the varying structure of the moon at all the Apollo landing sites, and on pages 322 and 323 the photograph of Dr David S. McKay (who is in that list of investigators I provided), his assistant Dr Uel S. Clanton, and scanning electron microscope photos of moon rocks taken by them, including the orange soil that sent Jack Schmitt and Gene Cernan's blood racing during Apollo 17. There was also a special edition of Science, 30 Jan 1970, with dozens of papers giving the results of the first analysis of the Apollo 11 samples. Edit to give actual issue date.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Nov 22, 2006 9:47:51 GMT -4
Can I read these articles? Dunno, you seem to have a bit of trouble reading our posts. So how come they have surfaces showing evidence of long-term exposure to lunar conditions, while meteorites have surfaces altered by heat during atmospheric entry?
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Nov 21, 2006 9:57:32 GMT -4
Moon rocks were inspected by only about 30 scientists. It may be make artificially.... 30 scientists were on the initial team in 1969, but since then NASA have been sending out about 1000 samples a year. Try asking your nearest university with a geology department. Name one geologist who thinks that the samples are fake. Name one who thinks it is even possible to manufacture such samples.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Nov 20, 2006 10:32:45 GMT -4
#248 scooter but 'The Moon Rock' oneself don't evidence rock of moon . Furthermore the moon had not magnetic force , however they had magnetic force. Furthermore they were very expensive why we cannot inspect them. The moon having no overall magnetic field does not rule out local magnetic fields, or magnetised rocks. The earth's field is nothing like as strong as that of a natural loadstone. If you want a lunar sample, qualify as a geologist and NASA will give you one for free.
|
|