i was looking through epod (environmental pictur of the day) and i found this. the pic is to commemorate 30 years of space capability or something along those lines.
funny thing is, i cant figure out how the pic was taken from that angle.
Full Version: how was this pic taken?
Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums > News, Media & World Events > Conspiracies & Secret Societies
it was taken from the landing capsule above them
The good people at NASA knew that man's first step onto the moon was going to be a BIG deal, so, they made a camera that would have a shot of it. Good thinking, I say. 
That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.
That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.
There were several cameras mounted on the out side of the lunar lander. The one that took the picture was located on the top of the lander.
| QUOTE |
| That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind |
He was suppose to say:
That's one small step for A man, one giant leap for mankind.
Neil Armstrong was probably so excited about being the first man on the moon he forgot that pesky A in his rehearsed line. Changes the meaning of what he said.
The first outerspace blooper
the lander did not seem that tall to me, but ok ill bite
thanks
thanks
The lander wasn't really that big, but remember, it sat atop a platform that was needed in order for it to take off from the moon. That's where the problem with height and distance come into play.
MM
MM
To the best of my research, all cameras had zoom len's and this picture was taken with full zoom out. (Distance + wide view) in order to get both men and part of the moon. So the zoom out effect makes it look as if the camera was farther away than it really is. Try it on a home video camera and you see what I mean.
| QUOTE (stillcrazy @ Mar 15 2004, 07:55 PM) | ||
There were several cameras mounted on the out side of the lunar lander. The one that took the picture was located on the top of the lander.
He was suppose to say: That's one small step for A man, one giant leap for mankind. Neil Armstrong was probably so excited about being the first man on the moon he forgot that pesky A in his rehearsed line. Changes the meaning of what he said. The first outerspace blooper |
actually that is what he said....only static hid the "a" part
| QUOTE |
| That's one small step for A man, one giant leap for mankind. Neil Armstrong was probably so excited about being the first man on the moon he forgot that pesky A in his rehearsed line. Changes the meaning of what he said. The first outerspace blooper |
Doesn't really change the meaning of it because it can either mean Man as a species or Man as a person
| QUOTE |
| actually that is what he said....only static hid the "a" part |
Armstron has said several times that he mis-stated his line. The static theory has been disproven about twenty years ago, by NASA. It wasn't strong enough to cover the word 'A' E-mail NASA and ask them about it. They have yet to change their web site with the proper quote, but will give you a positive response if you ask.
| QUOTE |
| Doesn't really change the meaning of it because it can either mean Man as a species or Man as a person |
Not to pick nits, But in american english he basically contradicted himself.
One small step for man (Meaning mankind) one giant leap for mankind (Meaning man) He said, in essence: We made a small step and a giant leap at the same time
For full recording of what he said go here. Official Gov. Site Armstrong Audio
For the funny version click here. Warning strong language. Click
Non non no... you got it all wrong.
He said:
"That's one small step for man[STATIC], but [STATIC], a giant leap for mankind"
He said:
"That's one small step for man[STATIC], but [STATIC], a giant leap for mankind"
| QUOTE |
| "That's one small step for man[STATIC], but [STATIC], a giant leap for mankind" |
Very good. I and NASA didn't notice the But in there. I didn't hear any static between "That's one small step for man, but {Static}a giant leap for mankind"
I stand corrected in part. But it still comes out as being incorrect english.
Anyway, it's always fun to go back and hear things again. (Having watched it on TV when it happened.)
now i d o believe we did go to the moon, but i was checking out a few pictures, and i'm curious on how that damn lunar lander actually landed?
Looking at pictures taken, there doesnt seem to be any disturbance on the ground directly below the lander...
okay i found this....
Looking at pictures taken, there doesnt seem to be any disturbance on the ground directly below the lander...
okay i found this....
| QUOTE |
| "The lander didn't come straight down, it came at an angle, moving along the ground as it was dropping. It wasn't hovering in one spot. The moon has no air, so the only thing to move the dust around is the gas itself from the rocket thrusters, but the thrusters were actually very low pressure, so they did blow some of the dust away directly below the lander, but there was still dust all around." |
but looking at any pictures i can find of the lander "feet" there are no drag marks, that would suggest it came down at an angle... i dunno, something just doesnt seem right...
The actual Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) required around 11.5 minutes to
descend from the Lunar Module (mothership), to the surface of the moon.
From an orbit of 60 nauticle miles, they throttled the rockets to move closer in.
Next is the braking phase. It is gradual, and saves on fuel.
They then approached the surface like an airport. That is called a
"highgate" position.
Then, they correct for landing, pilot visibilty, and manual control, if needed.
That is the "lowgate" phase.
The rockets had around 10,000 pounds of thrust, but I do not know what the various missions carried, with Lunar Rovers, but that figure might cover it.
The control was computerized, but could be flown manually.
The actual LEMs had what is called "hypergolic" propellant. DiNitrogen Tetroxide and AeroZine 50 (50% Hydrazine, 50% Unsymmetrical Dimethyl Hydrazine) were kept in helium pressurized tanks.
If you combine them, stand back! They feed into a chamber, and generate
a thrust exhaust. No ignition mechanism to fail.
LEMs had to ascend, go into orbital insertion, and dock with the main ship,
back up at 60 n. miles.
Gyroscopes and hydraulic servos kept the LEM's gimbaled rockets
correcting despite attitude. If the vehicle pitched, the engines kept
firing vertically.
The test vehicles had H2O2 thrust rockets.
Something like 5 test vehicles, 3 crashes. Back up rockets for emergency included.
Research vehicle could go into VTOL mode (verticle), attain 200 ft.
while moving forward 400 ft. in eight seconds.
Training the astronauts in these vehicles reminds me of the saying
"flying by the seat of your pants".
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Movie/LLR.../EM-0019-01.mpg
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Movie/LLR.../EM-0019-02.mpg
cool vids! thanks for those!
Thanks, Nethius. I tried to make it more clear, on the information of the
tests and the deployment during the mission.
I put more about it in the Space Technology board.
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...showtopic=13626
tests and the deployment during the mission.
I put more about it in the Space Technology board.
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...showtopic=13626
| QUOTE (Nethius @ Mar 16 2004, 06:43 PM) |
| but looking at any pictures i can find of the lander "feet" there are no drag marks, that would suggest it came down at an angle... i dunno, something just doesnt seem right... |
I find it incredible in this day and age that people exist who are sceptical of the moon landings having taken place when supposed.
If the whole thing was a conspiracy, then who do you suppose would gain the most from said conspiracy being revealed? Who was the US's biggest political adversary at that time? Which country was it that lost the race to the moon?
Which country would gain a massive political boost by revealing this 'conspiracy' to the world?
Now I wonder why they didn't say anything. Perhaps because there was no conspiracy?
nice of you to not quote my whole post, and not have even read it... if you would have you would have seen this...
| QUOTE ("Nethius") |
| now i do believe we did go to the moon |
but yea, i am a skeptic, so i do question everything
'It just doesn't look right'
I did read the post, but what is the above comment supposed to suggest?
I did read the post, but what is the above comment supposed to suggest?
it means it doesnt look right from how i understood the lander would have landed...
again, if you read my post, i asked for an explaination of the landing process
again, if you read my post, i asked for an explaination of the landing process
| QUOTE ("Nethius") |
| i'm curious on how that damn lunar lander actually landed? |
but if it was anything like those videos shun posted, then that it explains it
if you dont ask, you'll never know!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.