The Lunar surface question

King Mob

quasar2010 wrote: »

Did they? Well we have some pretty expensive telescopes out there that can watch comets striking Jupiter pretty well but I havn't seen any close up pictures of the space junk out there on the moon yet.
.

Because Jupiter is very big and comet impacts are very bright.
It's very hard not to sound patronising when you post silly stuff like this.

namloc1980

quasar2010 wrote: »

Did they? Well we have some pretty expensive telescopes out there that can watch comets striking Jupiter pretty well but I havn't seen any close up pictures of the space junk out there on the moon yet.
Why don't we send the Space Shuttle with an high res camera, you know the type they spy on each other with which can see a car registration plate from orbit?
Oh i just remembered, the space shuttle can't go to the Moon can it. Hasn't got the technology.
Chuckle.

So are you claiming that the Soviets faked all their missions to the Moon as well.....wow talk about being in denial. Anyway here is Lunakhod 2 on the surface:



I suppose this is all fake as well. So can you answer the question of how did the Soviets land 9 craft without sinking or if you think the Soviets also faked all their missions (BTW if they faked their missions how come there are retro reflectors on the moon?) can you prove this??

quasar2010

Here are a few simulated impacts. Notice how none of the stuff you just made up is observed?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzIw0c_MjTc

Glad you posted that actually. It shows the debris mushroom outward and how it forms the walls of an impact crater. Doesn't show any debris go back from where it came, all of it lands on the surface.
You seem to be answering my questions with remarks like:-
Another strawman
Yet another strawman
Can't be bothered
Said that
bla bla bla.
Fact is, none of what you have said adds up. You originally said that all the impact debris ends up in space and the moon will have a tiny bit left.
Wrong, the walls off the crater and the compacted rock underneath take most of the mass, small amount goes back into space.
Rather than talk science you've reverted to talking about scarecrows or something or other and the science has dissapeared in favour of 'ridicule, or attack the poster'
Seen it before, bought the t-shirt and now your boring me.

quasar2010

namloc1980 wrote: »

So are you claiming that the Soviets faked all their missions to the Moon as well.....wow talk about being in denial. Anyway here is Lunakhod 2 on the surface:



I suppose this is all fake as well. So can you answer the question of how did the Soviets land 9 craft without sinking or if you think the Soviets also faked all their missions (BTW if they faked their missions how come there are retro reflectors on the moon?) can you prove this??

Thats a load of dots on a dotted picture, amazing. Next

King Mob

quasar2010 wrote: »

Glad you posted that actually. It shows the debris mushroom outward and how it forms the walls of an impact crater. Doesn't show any debris go back from where it came, all of it lands on the surface.

The debris goes up and outwards which you said didn't happen.
And of course it all landed on the surface, it was a small test on Earth with a slow moving projectile.

quasar2010 wrote: »

You seem to be answering my questions with remarks like:-
Another strawman
Yet another strawman
Can't be bothered
Said that
bla bla bla.

Because most of you posts contain strawman arguments.

quasar2010 wrote: »

Fact is, none of what you have said adds up. You originally said that all the impact debris ends up in space and the moon will have a tiny bit left.

This is an out and out lie.
I specifically stated twice that I was not arguing this.

quasar2010 wrote: »

Wrong, the walls off the crater and the compacted rock underneath take most of the mass, small amount goes back into space.

Which is not what you have been arguing.

quasar2010 wrote: »

There just isn't enough energy after impact for the debris to escape gravity because most of the energy has been absorbed by the moon.

quasar2010 wrote: »

Rather than talk science you've reverted to talking about scarecrows or something or other and the science has dissapeared in favour of 'ridicule, or attack the poster'
Seen it before, bought the t-shirt and now your boring me.

I only bring up strawman arguments because that's what you're using.
I call them dishonest because they are.

And were exactly is the science you've been posting? All I'm seeing is just massive lack of scientific knowledge.

quasar2010

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

It wasnt designed to go to the moon because that wasnt its function. A car isnt designed to drive on water either. Chuckle

Lets get this right. In 1969, we had a craft which had the computing power of a pocket calculator - take off, do a couple of Earth orbits then head off to the moon where it performed its primary task of landing men on the moon and then returning.
In 2011 we have a craft which is a thousand times more advanced, has the same correcting retro boosters technology, mega computing power, can orbit the Earth but can't set a course for the Moon and do a couple of orbits then return?
Double chuckle
Its too funny this.

Divorce Referendum

quasar2010 wrote: »

Lets get this right. In 1969, we had a craft which had the computing power of a pocket calculator - take off, do a couple of Earth orbits then head off to the moon where it performed its primary task of landing men on the moon and then returning.
In 2011 we have a craft which is a thousand times more advanced, has the same correcting retro boosters technology, mega computing power, can orbit the Earth but can't set a course for the Moon and do a couple of orbits then return?
Double chuckle
Its too funny this.

Lol you are too funny man. You lark on about tecnhology and crap and miss the fact that the shuttle doesnt have energy(propulsion) needed to get into trans-lunar orbit because it wasnt designed for that. But keep going this is great.

King Mob

quasar2010 wrote: »

Lets get this right. In 1969, we had a craft which had the computing power of a pocket calculator - take off, do a couple of Earth orbits then head off to the moon where it performed its primary task of landing men on the moon and then returning.

This simply isn't true.

quasar2010 wrote: »

In 2011 we have a craft which is a thousand times more advanced, has the same correcting retro boosters technology, mega computing power, can orbit the Earth but can't set a course for the Moon and do a couple of orbits then return?
Double chuckle
Its too funny this.

Again showing a total lack of knowledge about space travel. And again I can't help but sound patronising because of a silly comment.
The shuttle is very big. the Apollo capsule is very small.
The shuttle is designed to only hold enough fuel and provide enough thrust for low orbit stuff.

So how come we had the Concorde in the 70's yet now we don't have a supersonic passenger jet?
Must be because supersonic passenger jets are impossible and Concorde must have been an elaborate hoax, right?

namloc1980

quasar2010 wrote: »

Thats a load of dots on a dotted picture, amazing. Next

Can you prove to us please that the Soviets faked all their lunar missions?

quasar2010

And were exactly is the science you've been posting? All I'm seeing is just massive lack of scientific knowledge

I'll remind you of how this argument has developed. Your main argument was that nearly all of the debris from an impact collision on the Moon ends up back in space.
We are talking about some massive events here, not just tennis ball sized objects. Massive meteors and such. None of the billions of tons of spewed out material you speak about ended up in the Earth's gravitational pull and ended up in the Earths geological records which has to be the biggest miracle since time began.
You then post a link to a video where it shows how all the material ends up back on the Moon forming a crater wall.
You couldn't make this up. Its got to be a winner.

quasar2010

The shuttle is designed to only hold enough fuel and provide enough thrust for low orbit stuff

I seem to remember it has a cargo bay where a fuel tank could be placed.

namloc1980

quasar2010 wrote: »

In 2011 we have a craft which is a thousand times more advanced, has the same correcting retro boosters technology, mega computing power, can orbit the Earth but can't set a course for the Moon and do a couple of orbits then return?
Double chuckle
Its too funny this.

Wow you really are showing your total lack of knowledge on this subject. Too funny is right.

King Mob

quasar2010 wrote: »

I'll remind you of how this argument has developed. Your main argument was that nearly all of the debris from an impact collision on the Moon ends up back in space.
We are talking about some massive events here, not just tennis ball sized objects. Massive meteors and such. None of the billions of tons of spewed out material you speak about ended up in the Earth's gravitational pull and ended up in the Earths geological records which has to be the biggest miracle since time began.
You then post a link to a video where it shows how all the material ends up back on the Moon forming a crater wall.
You couldn't make this up. Its got to be a winner.

This is pointless.
I can't argue with some one who deliberately misrepresents my points, ignores others, moves the goalposts and simply lies all in one post.

Go back and actually read my posts without trying to twist what I'm saying.

Divorce Referendum

King Mob wrote: »

This simply isn't true.


Again showing a total lack of knowledge about space travel. And again I can't help but sound patronising because of a silly comment.
The shuttle is very big. the Apollo capsule is very small.
The shuttle is designed to only hold enough fuel and provide enough thrust for low orbit stuff.

So how come we had the Concorde in the 70's yet now we don't have a supersonic passenger jet?
Must be because supersonic passenger jets are impossible and Concorde must have been an elaborate hoax, right?

Yep the apollo capsule weighed 95,000 pounds and the shuttle(empty) weighs 165,000 pounds. So its a considerable difference.

quasar2010

namloc1980 wrote: »

Can you prove to us please that the Soviets faked all their lunar missions?

The day I can see the equipment left behind with a telescope that i'm controlling is the day I'll believe anyone has been or sent anything to the moon or mars for that matter.

King Mob

quasar2010 wrote: »

I seem to remember it has a cargo bay where a fuel tank could be placed.

Which would weigh a lot and require even more boosters and fuel to actually get into orbit.
Oh and then there's the fact that the orbital engines can't quite provide the thrust to actually make such a trip even if it had the fuel.

I think you're getting your knowledge of spaceflight from Armageddon.

Divorce Referendum

quasar2010 wrote: »

I seem to remember it has a cargo bay where a fuel tank could be placed.

Even if the shuttles payload capacity was filled with fuel it would be still short of Delta V needed to achieve transfer orbit.

namloc1980

quasar2010 wrote: »

I'll remind you of how this argument has developed. Your main argument was that nearly all of the debris from an impact collision on the Moon ends up back in space.
We are talking about some massive events here, not just tennis ball sized objects. Massive meteors and such. None of the billions of tons of spewed out material you speak about ended up in the Earth's gravitational pull and ended up in the Earths geological records which has to be the biggest miracle since time began.
You then post a link to a video where it shows how all the material ends up back on the Moon forming a crater wall.
You couldn't make this up. Its got to be a winner.

Once again can you explain how the Soviets soft landed 9 spacecraft on the Moon in the 60's and 70's without them sinking? If you believe they faked all of their lunar missions can you provide evidence for this?

namloc1980

quasar2010 wrote: »

The day I can see the equipment left behind with a telescope that i'm controlling is the day I'll believe anyone has been or sent anything to the moon or mars for that matter.

Why do you think it is not possible to send spacecraft to other planetary bodies?

quasar2010

King Mob wrote: »

Which would weigh a lot and require even more boosters and fuel to actually get into orbit.
Oh and then there's the fact that the orbital engines can't quite provide the thrust to actually make such a trip even if it had the fuel.

I think you're getting your knowledge of spaceflight from Armageddon.

Oh the rockets that are far in advance of the 1969 ones - i see.
Well I'll tell you what then, here's something - take the lunar orbitter up in the shuttles cargo bay. Two man orbitter - can't be that big.

Divorce Referendum

quasar2010 wrote: »

Oh the rockets that are far in advance of the 1969 ones - i see.
Well I'll tell you what then, here's something - take the lunar orbitter up in the shuttles cargo bay. Two man orbitter - can't be that big.

Did you just ignore everything that has just been said to you?:rolleyes:

King Mob

quasar2010 wrote: »

Oh the rockets that are far in advance of the 1969 ones - i see.

Like how modern family car engines are way more advanced than an old spitfire engine, yet Spitfires can go much faster than family cars?
Different things for different jobs.

quasar2010 wrote: »

Well I'll tell you what then, here's something - take the lunar orbitter up in the shuttles cargo bay. Two man orbitter - can't be that big.

Then you still need the huge thrid stage of the Saturn V to push the lunar orbiter to the moon.

Do you actually know anything about spaceflight at all?

quasar2010

I gotta run guys, its bedtime - i'm working so i'll make this my last thread for the evening.
Something I have noticed about these arguments when i've read them and participated in them too. You can discuss these matters for hours and the same thing happens, the evidence is presented from both sides but the first people who become desperate are the defenders of the faith.
If they can't win the argument through science, the personal remarks begin and the 3-1 gang ups start. The favourite thing is to change the subject and bring in a prop, usually a picture. Its very predictable.
Do you realise you guys are defending a project that is now so doubtful that 1 in 3 Americans believe we didn't go to the moon?
Why do Americans have so much doubt when it was their pride and joy?
The Russians who were so involved in the space race at the time never went?
No ones been since, no one wants to go, no one has any intention of taking pictures of the landing sites.
I'll tell you why we don't go today in my opinion, they can't make people tell lies like they used to do, nothing more.
Good night its been a blast guys.

namloc1980

quasar2010 wrote: »

I gotta run guys, its bedtime - i'm working so i'll make this my last thread for the evening.
Something I have noticed about these arguments when i've read them and participated in them too. You can discuss these matters for hours and the same thing happens, the evidence is presented from both sides but the first people who become desperate are the defenders of the faith.
If they can't win the argument through science, the personal remarks begin and the 3-1 gang ups start. The favourite thing is to change the subject and bring in a prop, usually a picture. Its very predictable.
Do you realise you guys are defending a project that is now so doubtful that 1 in 3 Americans believe we didn't go to the moon?
Why do Americans have so much doubt when it was their pride and joy?
The Russians who were so involved in the space race at the time never went?
No ones been since, no one wants to go, no one has any intention of taking pictures of the landing sites.
I'll tell you why we don't go today in my opinion, they can't make people tell lies like they used to do, nothing more.
Good night its been a blast guys.

So you have no intention of backing up any of your claims and just cut and run instead.......very predictable indeed.

King Mob

quasar2010 wrote: »

The favourite thing is to change the subject and bring in a prop, usually a picture. Its very predictable.

Except you were the one to bring up the shuttle, a different subject.
But don't let little things like facts get in your way.
You haven't so far.

quasar2010

namloc1980 wrote: »

So you have no intention of backing up any of your claims and just cut and run instead.......very predictable indeed.

Go on then just a quicky.
You guys are now all arguing the reasons we can't possibly go to the Moon!
I knew I'd get you round to my way of thinking.
chuckle

namloc1980

quasar2010 wrote: »

Go on then just a quicky.
You guys are now all arguing the reasons we can't possibly go to the Moon!
I knew I'd get you round to my way of thinking.
chuckle

Making stuff up again I see....how about you just stick to the facts eh?

The Recliner

quasar2010 wrote: »

Go on then just a quicky.
You guys are now all arguing the reasons we can't possibly go to the Moon!
I knew I'd get you round to my way of thinking.
chuckle

If you chuckle one more time at the end of a post I think I will have to ban you out of pure annoyance

Argue your point but there is no need to go out of your way to antagonise people, to be honest it comes across as trolling and the forum can do without that

sligopark

read this article in the recent copy of the Nexus magazine ...

http://www.disinfo.com/2010/09/who-parked-the-moon/#

Mahatma coat

OK heres something interesting,

According to some of the Research done throught the Long term Lunar projects that were put on the Moon the viscosity of the Surface dust Alters Radically as the surface heats and cools, AFAIK the Manned missions were timed to arrive at either Lunar Dawn or Twilight when the temprature was best.

However the Dust becomes charged and excited during the Day and more compacted at night.

orsomesuch