Trinitrotoluene Posted August 20, 2006 #2201 Share Posted August 20, 2006 The front part of the ship faces in the direction that its going... duh! This just shows how much about space flight you know. There is one burn to get them to the velocity and direction they need to go. After that it doesn't matter what direction they are in, upside down, diagonal, forwards, backwards, front ways, backways, sideways any such way - they will still travel in the direction and at the speed they did the burn How did they get the lunar module into a museum? It's a REPLICA! The moon rocks were stored in the ascent stage of the LM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
postbaguk Posted August 20, 2006 #2202 Share Posted August 20, 2006 The front part of the ship faces in the direction that its going... duh! The thruster points in the opposite direction....... OK let's do one at a time.... They had long since finished the trans-lunar injection burn... the craft was essentially coasting, with the two main forces being the lunar gravity trying to draw the craft toward the moon, and earth's gravity acting like a braking force. While the main engine isn't firing, they simply used the directional thrusters to change the attitude of the craft - no matter where they were pointing, they would carry on flying in the same direction toward the moon, providing they didn't burn the main engine. If you're happy with that explanation, we can move onto another of your questions. If not, please expain why your not happy with this explanation. Or are you the same moonman who enjoys occasional trolling on apollohoax.net? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00Nm4N2 Posted August 20, 2006 #2203 Share Posted August 20, 2006 (edited) Its still in orbit when it does the third burn. It is still traveling with the nose cone towards the direction of travel. When the vessel reaches escape velocity of an astounding 11.2 Km/s, it is coming off of an elliptical orbit around the earth, facing tangentially along the 'circle' at desired target, ie moon. The LM in the Smithsonian museum is said to be officially recognized, numerous times as REAL! The moon rocks did not fit in the upper stage! Plain and simple!! Why did the rock boxes ride to the moon on the bottom if there was room for them on the upper stage? Using directional thrusters to turn sideways, for no apparent reason, presents ENOURMOUS risk of throwing the craft off target. At 250,000 miles, 1% is the difference between orbit and impact!! Plus, why waste fuel? It would be easy to rig a camera near the thruster pointing back towards earth 24/7. We've seen similar shots numerous times. Why not with apollo for the whole trip? Edited August 20, 2006 by m00Nm4N2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00Nm4N2 Posted August 20, 2006 #2204 Share Posted August 20, 2006 (edited) Why did NASA make absolutely no attempt to allow independent 3rd party auditors to verify the record? If you want guiness record for stupid; fastest taco eating contest... you need independent auditors with calibrated equipment, ie stopwatch, camera..... If i claim i run a 2 minute mile, do you believe me? What if the olympics was there to verify it? Edited August 20, 2006 by m00Nm4N2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicDog Posted August 20, 2006 #2205 Share Posted August 20, 2006 Gavsto, in 2184 Look at the left picture, close!! How come there are NO footprints in the dust from the astronaut thats taking the picture? How come there are also NO footprints in the soil from planting the flag???! Why would the presence or absence of footprints indicate a hoax? Footprints can be made or kicked into obscurity on the Moon as well as on the Earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00Nm4N2 Posted August 20, 2006 #2206 Share Posted August 20, 2006 aquatus1 or ADMIN; Does the poll ever get reset? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
postbaguk Posted August 20, 2006 #2207 Share Posted August 20, 2006 Its still in orbit when it does the third burn. It is still traveling with the nose cone towards the direction of travel. When the vessel reaches escape velocity of an astounding 11.2 Km/s, it is coming off of an elliptical orbit around the earth, facing tangentially along the 'circle' at desired target, ie moon. Let's stick to one question at a time moonman. Youi have essentially answered your own question. The vessel is still in orbit when it starts the translunar injection burn. I don't have the figures handy for exactly how long this burn is, but let's assume it's "a few minutes" (exactly how long is irrelevant to the argument). Once the burn finished, the craft is coasting toward the moon - the main engine is no longer firing. So the craft can now point in any direction without changing the direction of motion. Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, why? And are you the same moonman who posts on apollohoax.net? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00Nm4N2 Posted August 20, 2006 #2208 Share Posted August 20, 2006 (edited) Atom, Footprints get kicked over with dust that looks like fake crummy meteor craters? Wow, thats odd, my footprints have never spontaneously turned into micro meteor craters before.... NO postbaguk, i dont agree you dont know what you're talking about Edited August 20, 2006 by m00Nm4N2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicDog Posted August 20, 2006 #2209 Share Posted August 20, 2006 The LM in the Smithsonian museum is said to be officially recognized, numerous times as REAL! Wikipedia article on Lunar Module Scroll to the bottom. LM-2 is the one in the Smithsonian, made but never flown. So were LM-13, LM-14, and LM-15. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
postbaguk Posted August 20, 2006 #2210 Share Posted August 20, 2006 (edited) NO postbaguk, i dont agree you dont know what you're talking about You can agree or not, but you are completely wrong. With the main engine turned off, please explain how reversing the orientation of the craft would also reverse it's direction of motion? Come on now, admit it - you ARE the same trolling moonman from apollohaox.net! [Edited for clarity] Edited August 20, 2006 by postbaguk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicDog Posted August 20, 2006 #2211 Share Posted August 20, 2006 Atom, Footprints get kicked over with dust that looks like fake crummy meteor craters? Wow, thats odd, my footprints have never spontaneously turned into micro meteor craters before.... I don't know what you are talking about. Show me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daughter of the Nine Moons Posted August 20, 2006 #2212 Share Posted August 20, 2006 aquatus1 or ADMIN; Does the poll ever get reset? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinitrotoluene Posted August 20, 2006 #2213 Share Posted August 20, 2006 (edited) The LM in the Smithsonian museum is said to be officially recognized, numerous times as REAL! A real REPLICA. Provide your sources for this please. Show me one NASA site that says this is the LM that flew on any moon landing mission... The moon rocks did not fit in the upper stage! Plain and simple!! Let's see... Apollo 11 bought back 22kg of rock thats roughly 3 stone, so a quarter of a human being. How exactly could this not fit in the LM? Why did the rock boxes ride to the moon on the bottom if there was room for them on the upper stage? I'll let MID explain more on this, but it was probably easier to unload the boxes from that height than if they were in the ascent module Using directional thrusters to turn sideways, for no apparent reason, presents ENOURMOUS risk of throwing the craft off target. At 250,000 miles, 1% is the difference between orbit and impact!! No, it doesn't. For a start the RCS is not powerful enough to do that. And, do you not think they monitor their trajectory carefully? If they noticed they were coming in shallow or deep, they would fix their trajectory with another burn. Plus, why waste fuel? It doesn't waste a lot of fuel. It would be easy to rig a camera near the thruster pointing back towards earth 24/7. We've seen similar shots numerous times. Why not with apollo for the whole trip? The similar shots you are talking about are atatched to the SRB and are ejected with SRB SEP. Edited August 20, 2006 by Gavsto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daughter of the Nine Moons Posted August 20, 2006 #2214 Share Posted August 20, 2006 Come on now, admit it - you ARE the same trolling moonman from apollohaox.net! [Edited for clarity] Let's can the hostility and refrain from name calling. If anybody needs a quick refresher just click here No flaming or flame baiting - Members who are hostile, insulting and rude on a regular basis will be removed from the forum. Being offensive towards other members, making personal attacks or 'baiting' others into arguments are similarly unacceptable ways to behave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicDog Posted August 20, 2006 #2215 Share Posted August 20, 2006 NASA studying Apollo artifacts for RETURN to moon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
postbaguk Posted August 20, 2006 #2216 Share Posted August 20, 2006 Let's can the hostility and refrain from name calling. If anybody needs a quick refresher just click here Point taken - insinuation withdrawn, and apology offered to m00Nm4N2 Now, what about that question I asked re the orientation of the craft, and it's direction of travel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
postbaguk Posted August 20, 2006 #2217 Share Posted August 20, 2006 (edited) Let's can the hostility and refrain from name calling. If anybody needs a quick refresher just click here DOuble post - sorry about that Edited August 20, 2006 by postbaguk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00Nm4N2 Posted August 20, 2006 #2218 Share Posted August 20, 2006 (edited) Obviously, yes the LM would have burned up in the atmosphere when they tried to bring it back. They did not immediately think of this, of course they are going to try to cover their track by fixing the mistake later. However, the "LM-7" shown in musuems is a PERFECT replica, even though there is no money to account for its being built. Very odd. It was originally offered as a 'memorial' to the 'accident' on apollo 13, and the public was told that this was real. Museums are not in the habit of making fake items and offering them as real history, doesnt that defeat the point? Do museums try to pass off fake mummies? What would happen when numerous inconsitencies pop up? Directional thrusters are used for DIRECTIONAL vector adjustment. Their SOLE purpose was to KEEP the pre-planned flight trajectory. It's like a "fine focus" on a microscope or telescope. Considering how scarce resources are... It currently costs something like $10K per pound (rocket & payload) to put something in orbit. Extra fuel for unplanned acrobatics? Not in the flight plan?!!! How many pilots fly backwards? The physics involved in trying to use these to turn the craft around, when they were clearly not intended for acrobatic manuevers, and certainly were not calibrated for them.... Impossible! If it was "hard to unload empty boxes"... how easy could it be to load full boxes? And, its a well known matter of PUBLIC RECORD that the bottom of the ladder was 3 Ft. above the lunar surface. Aldrin tested the ladder on video. He had difficulty jumping up wearing the space suit alone and missed. Wearing pressurized suits, with pressurized gloves, trying to climb a ladder 3 ft above your feet with both hands full of boxes??? NO way! You are the one that must prove it was possible, and planned, to carry the moon rocks where they did not belong! And not to mention, all the risks of tearing the space suits!! Space suits that offered absolutely no protection against cosmic radtion? The lead apron you wear at the dentist offers way more radiation protection than the lunar space suits do!! Trusting NASA to verify something like this is like asking OJ Simpson to find out who killed his wife! Edited August 20, 2006 by m00Nm4N2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00Nm4N2 Posted August 20, 2006 #2219 Share Posted August 20, 2006 NASA studying Apollo artifacts for RETURN to moon Yea, dawg... I'm sure there are still a lot of old pieces of rusted junk left over from the saturns... so what? If the Saturn V was powerful enough to send the CSM to the moon, then why not the shuttle into space? Instead of the CSM, the shuttle could be the 3rd stage on the Saturn V and go into orbit! Woulda saved a ton of money, not to mention lives... If the shuttle plane was put on top of the saturn V; -No Foam and debris problems from liquid tank -No O-ring problems of Solid Rocket Boosters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00Nm4N2 Posted August 20, 2006 #2220 Share Posted August 20, 2006 (edited) What you guys dont know is what you guys dont want to know; There has long been an alternate space program, which developed out of the manhattan project. NASA was a cover to keep it secret, drum up nationalism, and justify exhorbatant amounts of taxes!! Edited August 20, 2006 by m00Nm4N2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquatus1 Posted August 20, 2006 #2221 Share Posted August 20, 2006 This is falling back into the disorder that it was at first. Pro-Apollo side, once again, a billion different points are being presented, and giving the Pro-Hoax side the ability to skip back and forth without being pinned down. Don't play that game. Pro-Hoax side. Which point do you want to talk about. Pick one point. Only one. When that one has been solved, we can move on to the next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00Nm4N2 Posted August 20, 2006 #2222 Share Posted August 20, 2006 And, im sure there are a lot of 'moon men'... but i'm m00Nm4N2 -- http://apollomoonhoax.blogspot.com/ / http://ufoblog.blogspot.com/ I WAS THERE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00Nm4N2 Posted August 20, 2006 #2223 Share Posted August 20, 2006 Okay, the moon photos could easily be faked! We know they had the capability to fake them, and the models. The photos and vids show numerous inconsistencies In this photo, you can see stars coming through the moon??? What? http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3919/35...-88-11963HR.jpg If you use Mozilla, you can zoom in. Lower left, moon shadow shows stars and galaxies?!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinitrotoluene Posted August 20, 2006 #2224 Share Posted August 20, 2006 (edited) Obviously, yes the LM would have burned up in the atmosphere when they tried to bring it back. They did not immediately think of this, of course they are going to try to cover their track by fixing the mistake later. Ok so we've changed now from "there is a LM in a museum" to they didn't immediately think of this and fixed the mistake later. Please keep one theory and stick to it. By the way, do you have any proof that they did this? However, the "LM-7" shown in musuems is a PERFECT replica, even though there is no money to account for its being built. Very odd. As posted by Waspie. APOLLO LUNAR MODULE This is an actual lunar module, one of 12 built for Project Apollo. It was meant to be used in low Earth orbit to test the techniques of separation, rendezvous, and docking with the command and service module. The second of two such test vehicles, its mission was cancelled because of the complete success of the first flight It was originally offered as a 'memorial' to the 'accident' on apollo 13, and the public was told that this was real. We still on this LM? Proof, proof, proof please. Museums are not in the habit of making fake items and offering them as real history, doesnt that defeat the point? This is absolute rubbish, you best get on to the phone and tell all museums with pictures and models of dinosaurs in them that they're are going against normal museum habit. It was impossible to bring the LM that landed on the moon back to earth, hence a replica was placed in the museum instead of an actual one that was used in flight. Edited August 20, 2006 by Gavsto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waspie_Dwarf Posted August 20, 2006 #2225 Share Posted August 20, 2006 Museums are not in the habit of making fake items and offering them as real history, doesnt that defeat the point? The point of museums is to educate. In many cases they will use replicas for this aim. They are generally marked as fuch. For example there are far more t-rex skeletons on display than have ever been found. This is because most of them are replacas. Obviously, yes the LM would have burned up in the atmosphere when they tried to bring it back. They did not immediately think of this, of course they are going to try to cover their track by fixing the mistake later. However, the "LM-7" shown in musuems is a PERFECT replica, even though there is no money to account for its being built. Very odd. Not odd at all if you do about 10 seconds research. Here is what the Smithsonain actually says about the LM it exhibits: APOLLO LUNAR MODULE This is an actual lunar module, one of 12 built for Project Apollo. It was meant to be used in low Earth orbit to test the techniques of separation, rendezvous, and docking with the command and service module. The second of two such test vehicles, its mission was cancelled because of the complete success of the first flight. Source: Smithsonian National Air & Space Museum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts