The lander (Eagle) was was jettisoned into lunar orbit, the pod that came back to earth is part of Columbia, never landed on the surface of the moon.
The Apollo 10 astronauts jettisoned the Snoopy lunar module into an orbit around the Sun and headed back to Earth on May 23, 1969.
Apollo 10 acted as a dress rehearsal for the Moon landing. The astronauts had flown Snoopy down to within 9 miles of the lunar surface.
Below is the view of the lunar surface as seen from Snoopy.
And? Was it not purportedly first having 'landed' on the... 'Moon', er.. on 'pppppods'? I quote, "the Eagle has landed". It's this juncture in question.
Last edited:
The lunar lander from the bottom of landing pads to the junction of the upper stage ascent module measures Ten feet, seven point one six inches. Aside from the astronauts tracking in moon-dust off their boots & the stuff sticking to their spacesuits, very little would "hitch a ride" on the outside of the ascent module.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Rick...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Rick...
Last edited by a moderator:
I must dedicate this to everyone's favourite Mathematician:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmy_Noether
Progress!
Nearly there. 🙂
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmy_Noether
Progress!
Nearly there. 🙂
"Stable orbit around the Lagrange point" - cool! 😎
From what I read pertaining to the potential lunar elevator and its satellite station at L1, there would have to be correction to this orbital motion in order to keep the station stationary wrt the anchor point on the lunar surface.
From what I read pertaining to the potential lunar elevator and its satellite station at L1, there would have to be correction to this orbital motion in order to keep the station stationary wrt the anchor point on the lunar surface.
I will accept the so called "flat Earth (non)theory" as soon as they come up with a working model...until then they should STFU.
Mike
Correction: The satellite station at L1 would require positional stabilisation to correct for its tendency to roll off the 'saddle'.
Oh they do have a model... it doesn't exactly work. It involves buoyancy (since gravity is ixnayed with a flat earth) and acceleration of the disk that accelerates "up" at 9.8 meters/second squared. See where this is (not) going?
Dedicated flerfers have conducted many experiments to "prove" the flat earth. The hilarious thing is that they always demonstrate a spinning globe earth.
In closing, I want to point out the irony that buoyancy is a property of differential mass densities in a gravitational field. Another flerf fail!
Dedicated flerfers have conducted many experiments to "prove" the flat earth. The hilarious thing is that they always demonstrate a spinning globe earth.
In closing, I want to point out the irony that buoyancy is a property of differential mass densities in a gravitational field. Another flerf fail!
And those who would seek to deny the Moon landings malign the memory of those who perished during the Apollo programme.
They should most definitely STFU!
Lest we forget:
There is a great mission animation on the Artemis I Wikipedia page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_1
Okay, very little then. Problem is there's not a single speck anywhere. Have you seen the close ups of the landing pads? Which btw are shaped like a bowl. Have you watched Buzz Aldrin's narration of the descent?
More to the point, the descent engines were switched off when the lunar module was still 1.6 m above the lunar surface.
By the time the lander's legs touched down, the dust that had been blown radially outwards by the engine's exhaust had already returned to the lunar surface some distance away from the lander.
Any fule kno that there is no atmosphere on the Moon capable of suspending dust, so it doesn’t float around for a while and then settle on whatever surface it can find.
One only has to look at a video of a lunar rover to see how quickly the dust churned up by its wheels returns to the lunar surface.
NASA would have needed a huge vacuum chamber to have faked that footage!
To confirm the above analysis , just look at how dust free the lander's foot pad is in the attachment! 😉
Attachments
You seem to be forgetting about the "descent" and the "sprinkling". With all that "sprinkling" (like a sand blaster btw) almost "obscuring" their vision, would not at least a "speck" been collected in those bowl shaped landing pods? You know, falling straight down into them without any atmosphere impeding.
btw thanks for the pic. 😉
btw thanks for the pic. 😉
Last edited:
Moon video, @ 1:21 "Damaged tape part"--- yeah right. That's where our astronauts negotiated with the Lunatic to hire his jump-over moon-cow to pull their rover out of a sand-trap. They never tell you that part.
Obscuring their vision? I don't what footage you've seen, the stuff I have seen has high velocity wispy "rays" eminating from under the spacecraft, no billowing or vision limiting effect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Rick...