General Chat

????????????????????

Well I didnt, but I can't speak for you! )))

I nearly did once.....................I can't read a map to save my life!! lol

xx

naah Jac, I was already there ;)

Well I certainly felt like it on that particular night. Ask Kitty's ex mother in law......pmsl....

Oh that old chestnut?

I have to say yes we did as they sent back piccies of what the earth looked like ... plus I was only a nipper at the time and I remember looking at the moon one night and thinking "There's men up there" which was weird.

So - yes, they did.

Jill

You refering to the grainy photo's of Neil Armstrong planting a flag in some American desert?

The chestnut is 40 years old today :)

Well I was about 12 in that case!

I like to think they did land there ...

Jill

Hey Andy did you hear about this one? Tell me are you locked in the punch,
Hey Andy are you goofing on Elvis? Hey Andy are you having fun?
If you believe they put a man on the moon, man on the moon;
If you believe there's nothing up my sleeve, then nothing is cool.

REM

Oh come on Rach - you're at least 55! Don't tell me you're under 40!!!! Nah!

Jill

Was before my time.

But my OH can bore the pants off the most patient of people giving endless reasons why he thinks they didn't.

I generally switch off during the explanations of dodgy shadows lol (the first five mins of the speech) xx

Of course they landed on th moon. Conspiracy theorist conspiracies everywhere. All of the issues they brought up about, shadows, reflections in space helmets & lack of stars in the moon sky have all been explained away.

The most compelling evidence that they did land. Was, when each Apollo mission flew, circled the earth & sling shot outwards to the moon & landing. There is constant transmission (both data & vocal) between the spacecraft & earth. This was received & sent by radio telescopes from around the world. ie in the UK at Jodrell bank.
Not only did these receive & send signals to the space craft. These radio telescopes also tracked it, by triangulation. Thousands of scientist & academics were involved in this world wide & thousands more contributed to the program........Could they have all been kept quiet for 40yrs?
So if the moon landings were a conspiracy. It wouldn't have been a USA?NASA conspiracy. But it would had to have been a worldwide conspiracy.

Steve

The bit I cannot explain to myself after all these years is how the lunar module was shown leaving the moon. Who filmed that ?

And so many shots that could have only been made with a remote external camera.

Yep cos Patrick Moore watched it through his telescope,I remember that. I was 16 I should remember more about it than I do. Shame on me.

The classic piece of footage of the lander taking off the moon. I believe it was Apollo 17. Was done by camera remotely controlled by a NASA technician in the control room. Panning the camera upwards using a joystick.

Because of the time delay that it takes for the signal to reach the moon. He had to send the signal about 2.5 secs before take off. To keep the craft in the view of the camera. He had to work out the stake off trajectory of the craft relative to camera. From this, he calculated how quickly he would have to pan the camera upwards.

So at T minus 2.5secs he pulled the joystick for the camera back at the rate he had calculated it to move at.

The at T = 0 secs (on the moon) the lander took off & the camera panned upwards............Then it took another 2.5 seconds for the pictures from the camera to return to earth.

So from his view of that camera monitor. It was 5 seconds from the time he pulled back on that joystick until he saw the pictures of lander taking off & also to see if he'd calculated it right.................It was a one off shot. If he got it wrong there was no take two.

Steve.

Well I don't know about you SRS...but I definitely didn't....I think!

♥*¨¨*Little White Dove*¨¨*♥ Today at 21:39 Request review
Yep cos Patrick Moore watched it through his telescope

That's the most convincing argument. I trust him.

there IS one thing that recently troubled me, I have always believed that the landings really happened BUT........

when a rocket engine fires, on earth there is obvious action......flame smoke and stuff..
when the engine is in rarefied atnosphere the flame seems to diminish ( watching the footage from the shuttle,boosters and fuel tank etc)

on the moon when the rocket fires, there is NO flame or smoke......just bits of junk flying around.......is that real? I thought that a rocket by its nature carries its own oxygen and propellant so I thought that there should be flame n smoke n stuff.......
any one any views on that?

Bob

I really dont think that patrick moore would have been able to actually see the vehicles? on the moon there wasnt a telescope powerful enough, methinks

also on another clip, there is a remote camera, showing the astronauts exiting the module...after the landing...did I miss something? who put the camera in position.......think it WAS apollo 17

Bob...I think there are few issues when a rocket is engine burning. One is the atmosphere it is burning in....In earths atmosphere there is a lot of water vapour. This in itself will cause a smokey trial of water vapour.
Also the when hydrogen & oxygen burn, the obvious by product is water vapour. When they test the space shuttle engines. The exhaust gases...water vapour actually creates a rain cloud & it rains after the test.

Also & maybe this may answer your question, is how efficient the fuel burns. The hydrogen (which in the past was derived from hydrozine) when burnt purely in O2 will burn with a colourless flame.
I know this as a fact, from my days of MOVPE work. We had to have UV flame detectors, in case in the event of a hydrogen leak that caught fire.

Steve