Star Wars looked at alot of different kinds of weapons - space & ground based laser, various types of kinetic kill (brilliant pebbles), etc. Given the distance (between 357K km and 412K km) kinetic anti-missile weapons from the moon are a bad choice. Not to mention, why launch your weapons out of a gravity well instead of from orbit?
And laser weapons have two problems - first, the moon is in orbit around the earth - which means it does not always have line of site to the area you need to defend, and second - it's to far away to actually see or target missiles. For the same reasons that hubble & earth based telescopes can't see the landers on the moon, no telescope on the moon could possibly see a missile. They could probably see a rocket plume on launch - but that job is already done better from GEO.
Regarding the economic stuff you mentioned in another post - why go to the moon when anything you want can be obtained far cheaper here on earth? When that changes, you'll see economic development on the moon. One thing that might change that is development in orbit that needs large quantities of materials - the balance may eventually tip in favor of lifting it from the moon rather then earth. But not anytime soon.
Not strange at all. The photographic exposure was set for the very bright foreground objects. The much dimmer stars don't show up. The various issues with stars, shadow directions, lit objects in shadows, crosshairs that appear to be behind objects, etc. are all well addressed this link that I've posted previously: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
Here's another link to some actual demonstration of these effects that you can try at home: http://www.iangoddard.net/moon01.htm
Jeff7
Lifer
- Jan 4, 2001
- 41,596
- 19
- 81
My sister and some friends were in a city park on a bright sunny day. I think she was standing in the sun, with the shade of a tree behind her, or something like that. Anyway, one of the friends took a picture of my sister, and when the picture came out, it looked almost like it was shot at night - the background was almost completely black.
It's just the contrast and the camera adjusting for it. The bright lunar surface filled most of the scene, so the stars would effectively be drowned out.
Born2bwire
Diamond Member
- Oct 28, 2005
- 9,840
- 6
- 71
Somebody stated wanting to know why the roadmap to go back to the moon is so drawn out given that we achieved it back in the 60's. A few points to note about this is that the result of the Apollo program (among other things), is that we know how to get to the moon using 1960's technology and manufacturing. This is a really significant point to consider since the systems and equipment used were designed to very specific details down to the last bolt and screw. Very little of these parts and equipment are being manufactured today and so even if we were to sit down and say build new Saturn rockets we would have to do huge redesigns to account for the different parts and materials of today. In addition, the systems were designed with the technological limitations of the era in mind. On the Saturn rocket, they actually designed the control sequences to activate ahead of time for when to fire the various stages. This was because there was a known delay in the wiring and systems before the signal reached the devices. With new and better systems we still need to redesign and test them.
We also did not just decide one day to up and go to the moon. The Apollo program was a set of missions exploring the necessary steps and feasibility to achieve that goal. The earlier missions took baby steps to try out each stage of the process, like testing the Saturn V, flying around the moon, testing the lunar module, flying the lunar module around the moon, etc. By the time we hit Apollo 11, NASA had gone through most of the routines in prior missions.
We also did not just decide one day to up and go to the moon. The Apollo program was a set of missions exploring the necessary steps and feasibility to achieve that goal. The earlier missions took baby steps to try out each stage of the process, like testing the Saturn V, flying around the moon, testing the lunar module, flying the lunar module around the moon, etc. By the time we hit Apollo 11, NASA had gone through most of the routines in prior missions.
ok so lets say the stars dont show cause everything was bright, how do you explain that shadows appear to be cast from different light sources even though there was only one light source and that was the sun. another thing to note is that on some pictures the astronauts are standing in the shadow but still in the picture they are as bright as christmas trees. last time i checked if you are standing in the shadow and there is no artificial lighting you wont show in the picture. if there was a flash on the camera, it would have illuminated the entire scene and not just one person. photo tricks in the moon? by the astronauts? while wearing those heavy suits with the thick gloves? i read all the links and i think that in the lab its very nice to demontrate such effects but its a bit weird when those effects apply on so many pictures. i think the links are more like "nasa to the rescue" rather than hones representations of what happened in the pictures. my point is that you canexplain one thing in many different ways. some ways are far fetched and other ways are closer to reality. i think the nasa version is far fetched.
another nice point mentioned was that they took hundrends of pictures on a few tens of films. has anyone tried changing the film in the camera wearing 2 inch thick gloves? and no they didnt have dozens of cameras. the pictures are clearly a pro's work as i have mentioned before and that is a claim from many photo experts. so how do astronauts take pro pictures in such a harsh environment?
another nice point mentioned was that they took hundrends of pictures on a few tens of films. has anyone tried changing the film in the camera wearing 2 inch thick gloves? and no they didnt have dozens of cameras. the pictures are clearly a pro's work as i have mentioned before and that is a claim from many photo experts. so how do astronauts take pro pictures in such a harsh environment?
no, its not light from the earths reflection. not even nasa used that excuse. as for the rest of the "trash" you dont know what to reply. i wonder why you even post. you are just making yourself look bad.
-edit-
No need to rush eh?
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=1231
-edit-
No need to rush eh?
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=1231
Born2bwire
Diamond Member
- Oct 28, 2005
- 9,840
- 6
- 71
Consider how luminous the moon appears at night. The moon's rock and dust manage to reflect a considerable amount of light. With the pictures being against the backdrop of space, the light reflected off of the moon's surface produces the multiple light sources that are seen.
But seriously, think about the implications of gross incompetence that these ideas suggest in accordance to what would be a $100+ billion dollar failure and coverup. Do you honestly think that if NASA faked the moon landings that they would leave such obvious flaws in the footage and not redo the scenes? If they faked the footage, then there would be no problem in filming on an enclosed set where there would not be any wind to flutter the flag, where they could control only a single lightsource to simulate the sun, where they could create fake starfields, etc. Do people honestly think that the observations from an armchair observer would not have been seen by the officials, engineers, and other highly educated people that would have had a hand in this coverup?
As for how they got nice pictures. As you said, they took hundreds of pictures. The ones that are used for public viewing are the cream of the crop. I'm sure that there are many examples of blurry and poorly set photos.
2 inch gloves? Astronauts have the dexterity in their suits to perform maintainance and repairs on space shuttles, space stations, and delicate instruments like the Hubble telescope. Don't you think that they would be able to design a camera system that would allow them to properly function it? This is nothing more than an engineering problem, one of many that faced NASA. They did not go to the moon using off the shelf parts from Digikey and Wolf Camera.
But seriously, think about the implications of gross incompetence that these ideas suggest in accordance to what would be a $100+ billion dollar failure and coverup. Do you honestly think that if NASA faked the moon landings that they would leave such obvious flaws in the footage and not redo the scenes? If they faked the footage, then there would be no problem in filming on an enclosed set where there would not be any wind to flutter the flag, where they could control only a single lightsource to simulate the sun, where they could create fake starfields, etc. Do people honestly think that the observations from an armchair observer would not have been seen by the officials, engineers, and other highly educated people that would have had a hand in this coverup?
As for how they got nice pictures. As you said, they took hundreds of pictures. The ones that are used for public viewing are the cream of the crop. I'm sure that there are many examples of blurry and poorly set photos.
2 inch gloves? Astronauts have the dexterity in their suits to perform maintainance and repairs on space shuttles, space stations, and delicate instruments like the Hubble telescope. Don't you think that they would be able to design a camera system that would allow them to properly function it? This is nothing more than an engineering problem, one of many that faced NASA. They did not go to the moon using off the shelf parts from Digikey and Wolf Camera.
no, dude, no need to rush. let sweden get the moon while USA sits back and follows treaties.
my suggestion isnt entirely that they didnt go to the moon. i am suggesting that not all pics come from the moon.
my suggestion isnt entirely that they didnt go to the moon. i am suggesting that not all pics come from the moon.
Oh? What is it entirely?
And I am suggesting that you are a backpeddling troll. If you read the debunk site and some of the links from said site on the first page of this post you would see that EVERY argument you're coming up with has been debunked thoroughly. Alot of the examples you're using with pictures have photos taken on Earth which show the same lighting "anomalies".
See, I put "anomalies" in quotes because I'm being sarcastic. They aren't really anomalies.. just things that look weird if you don't know much about photography.
EDIT:
Oh and just to give you some real info without only insulting you, if shadows were cast from 2 light sources, you would see 2 SHADOWS from one source. Unequal length shadows are normal based on where the shadow source is relative to the light souce. Note, in both of the photos below the light source is the sun.
EARTH
MOON
not all of the pics. i know it sounds stupid but if you try to merge the arguments from both sides you will end up to this.
@zambien
photo experts still argue over the pics. unless you are one, you dont really get to say that i am clueless. im no expert in the matter, i hear what both sides have to say and NASA isnt convincing me. Ok, i agree the light effects could be for various natural reasons but to prove their point they gave lab photos.
if you wanted to argue properly, i suppose you should have mentioned the low gravity apparent on the video. i dont stand in either extreme. i stand in a grey area, as i said i just want to have a discussion on the topic. i can argue both for and against. i just want to know what people think about this topic.
@zambien
photo experts still argue over the pics. unless you are one, you dont really get to say that i am clueless. im no expert in the matter, i hear what both sides have to say and NASA isnt convincing me. Ok, i agree the light effects could be for various natural reasons but to prove their point they gave lab photos.
if you wanted to argue properly, i suppose you should have mentioned the low gravity apparent on the video. i dont stand in either extreme. i stand in a grey area, as i said i just want to have a discussion on the topic. i can argue both for and against. i just want to know what people think about this topic.
It is stupid. If we went to the moon, why fake any photos? What would be the purpose? You can't "merge" the sides - either we went or we didn't.
Linkage to arguments by photo experts that the explanations on the Bad Astronomy link for the photo "anomalies" are not correct? The explanations look very solid to me - even more so with the demonstrations from the other page I linked to.
What lab photos?? The ones on Ian Goddard page I linked to? Those are DEMONSTRATIONS of the effects that account for the so called "anomalies". What more could you want? What are the holes in these explanations? Where are your experts refuting these explanations?
eh?
You haven't argued anything - you've simply regurgitated long refuted issues from conspiracy sites.
I agree with the explanations given by the links you provided. There is room for doubt still. Just because something exists, doesnt mean it applies to everything. So maybe the nomalies in the pictures are real or maybe they are not.
I agree it would be stupid to fake the pics if they were already in the moon. Bad logic from my part.
About the video, i think thats the strongest argument you could have given. In the video it is apparent that they are in a low gravity environment without atmosphere. it can be seen by the trajectory of the dust particles on the wheels of the vehicles. Thats a good argument.
I agree it would be stupid to fake the pics if they were already in the moon. Bad logic from my part.
About the video, i think thats the strongest argument you could have given. In the video it is apparent that they are in a low gravity environment without atmosphere. it can be seen by the trajectory of the dust particles on the wheels of the vehicles. Thats a good argument.
Google up "apollo hammer feather" for another good demonstration of the abscense of atmosphere and of the reduced gravity.
BurnItDwn
Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 26,330
- 1,841
- 126
There have been many excellent points made.
I have another point.
We have cheese on earth.
As we all know, the moon is cheese.
Thus, in order to get cheese, we have been to the moon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That is 100% set in stone proof right there.
I have another point.
We have cheese on earth.
As we all know, the moon is cheese.
Thus, in order to get cheese, we have been to the moon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That is 100% set in stone proof right there.
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
I'm back. I see some people are finally getting through to you. When you put all the good arguments together, including the hammer-feather (a falcon feather
) video that someone else has mentioned, you get "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." However the fact that we've had men on the moon hasn't been on trial in this thread... It's a fact that's been accepted by everyone with any decent amount of scientific background. The only people who think that we haven't are the conspiracy theorists and the people they somehow manage to convince to have doubts. You, obviously, aren't one of the conspiracy theory nutcases as you seem to be coming to your senses. They continue to believe their story, regardless of the evidence to the contrary. Man has been to the moon. This is fact. No need for discussion.
Armitage already mentioned it and its on the debunking sites you obviously refuse to read or acknowledge, but we have been to the moon simply by the proof that still to this day we bounce earth based lasers off of deployed mirrors on the moon and back. Either we had ridiculously advanced robots back then or the conspiracy of the moon landing lives on. Choose your conspiracy wisely now. We were on the moon.
@. Landing on a moon was a nice hollywood video, i give 5 out of 5. with some misstakes on light setup wich is seen by a naked eye.
@. Why in 37 years none go to moon or other planet? I say simply because there is no technology avalible, moon walk was a lie against Cold war race... shame..
@. Quote: (You've convinced me - let's disband NASA and kill all R&D spending so we can feed the starving children.) I say: yes NASA sucks, but hungry children should be feed by parents, 3rd world countries live off donations and that is why they cant do s#!t....
@. Renamber this is only my opinion, no reason to hunt me down I promise not to release secret files. there are no Aliens (in our galaxy) .... lol just us.. primitive humans... ohh yea we are not part of evolution, we are from Adam and Eva, we had an apple tree wich we had to try and it was a SIN.... ohhh realy? ok so we are not from monkeys? lol ok i figure that out.. but who are we.. WE ARE ALIENS... yes we are.
@. Why in 37 years none go to moon or other planet? I say simply because there is no technology avalible, moon walk was a lie against Cold war race... shame..
@. Quote: (You've convinced me - let's disband NASA and kill all R&D spending so we can feed the starving children.) I say: yes NASA sucks, but hungry children should be feed by parents, 3rd world countries live off donations and that is why they cant do s#!t....
@. Renamber this is only my opinion, no reason to hunt me down
I promise not to release secret files. there are no Aliens (in our galaxy) .... lol just us.. primitive humans... ohh yea we are not part of evolution, we are from Adam and Eva, we had an apple tree wich we had to try and it was a SIN.... ohhh realy? ok so we are not from monkeys? lol ok i figure that out.. but who are we.. WE ARE ALIENS... yes we are. TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter