why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?

[Glom]

The Hasselblad EDC used  a 70mm Biogon lens....

Actually the lunar surface cameras had nonremovable 60 mm f/5.6 lenses carefully matched to their Reseau plates. The cameras for internal cabin use lacked Reseau plates so they could use removable lenses with a variety of focal lengths.

Yes of course! It always made me wonder why they called it a 70mm..... when it had a 60mm lens fitted, and of course the film is colour positive not negative(thank you for the correction alexsanchez). The high standards of this forum are hard to live up to for novice debunkers

p.s. I'm not a photographer, this is just from stuff I've read in the past.

70mm refers to the film it takes.

[Jason Thompson]

I'd actually say about 1 foot accuracy in xyz, but small fraction of a degree in azimuth and elevation.

Based on what? Since:

Do you have thrust vectoring on the LM?  I don't think RCS is ever used with the main engine.

You don't even know the capabilities of the machine you are presuming to pass judgement on. Since the abilities of the ascent engine and the RCS system are absolutely critical to answering the question of how precisely the take off position needed to be known, don't you think that's a staggeringly huge omission for an engineer to make in his argument?

Why don't you know if the ascent engine was gimballed? Why do you think the RCS couldn't be operated with the ascent engine firing? And what difference would it make anyway, since the rendezvous was carried out some time after APS shutdown?

One more time: do you understand that ascent into orbit and rendezvous with the CSM were separate events?

[smartcooky]

The Hasselblad EDC used  a 70mm Biogon lens....

Actually the lunar surface cameras had nonremovable 60 mm f/5.6 lenses carefully matched to their Reseau plates. The cameras for internal cabin use lacked Reseau plates so they could use removable lenses with a variety of focal lengths.

Yes of course! It always made me wonder why they called it a 70mm..... when it had a 60mm lens fitted, and of course the film is colour positive not negative(thank you for the correction alexsanchez). The high standards of this forum are hard to live up to for novice debunkers

p.s. I'm not a photographer, this is just from stuff I've read in the past.

70mm refers to the film it takes.

It was unusual to see 70mm film used in still image cameras; it was more commonly used for movie films, especially when shot in Panavision or Cinemascope.

The vast majority of medium format still cameras used the 61.5mm wide "120", "220" or "620" films, but these films are sprocketless, so I guess the fact that 70mm has sprocket holes making film transport more reliable might have influenced their decision to use it.

Could also be that 70mm film is not backed, so more film per magazine - weight saving etc.

[Echnaton]

HOW DO YOU FAKE A ROCK?

Welcome to the forum, Halibut.

The standard answers are to cook earth rocks in magical mystical radiation oven, or perhaps to make rocks by some unknown process in the radiation oven, or....  Whatever it takes to deflect objections to the hoax idea.

I realise this is my first post here and I do apologise for jumping in in such a long thread, but:

Just dive on in anytime.  Headfirst if you want to.

[AtomicDog]

It seems to me that infusing a rock with radiation would, if anything,  make a rock appear to be younger,  not older.

And the Apollo astronauts were looking for the oldest rocks they could find.

[Echnaton]

It seems to me that infusing a rock with radiation would, if anything,  make a rock appear to be younger,  not older.

[HB]Not when using government top secret particle beam weapon technology![/HB] 

[Trebor]

It seems to me that infusing a rock with radiation would, if anything,  make a rock appear to be younger,  not older.

[HB]Not when using government top secret particle beam weapon technology![/HB] 

sshhh, they are not supposed to know that....
Just see if you get your NWO check this month.

[JayUtah]

anybody figure out how to do a lunar rendezvous without an IMU alignment yet?  I'm looking into that.  I know that's a touchy subject.

It's not a touchy subject.  Everyone but you knows how to do it, and how it was done.  Don't pretend your ignorance on the subject is anyone's problem but yours.

[Echnaton]

sshhh, they are not supposed to know that....
Just see if you get your NWO check this month.

I guess you don't know about the sad state of the Space City chapter.  The louts who run it are such loose lipped drunkards and have let out the secret so many times that the membership has swelled.  The Chapter is so big now that all it can afford to do is pay the bar tab for the monthly happy hour.  I haven't seen a check in years.  It is amazing how much loyalty the promise of a few rounds of drinks each month will get you.

[JayUtah]

I'd actually say about 1 foot accuracy in xyz, but small fraction of a degree in azimuth and elevation.

Wow, you have absolutely no clue how a phased rendezvous works.  You know less about this than many high school students.

No, don't bother trying to talk about signs on equations or other meaningless jargon you think will make people believe you know anything about this.  You have no expertise.

I can launch a spacecraft from 180 degrees around the planet from my target vehicle and still effect a rendezvous with it using a series of phasing steps.  These techniques were worked out in the early 1960s and practiced during Gemini.  And it's how we've accomplished every orbital rendezvous since -- 4 decades' worth.  You're still suck on the "hit a bullet with a bullet" layman's misconception.

Do you have thrust vectoring on the LM?

No, the APS is not gimballed.

I don't think RCS is ever used with the main engine.

Then you're even more clueless than I could possibly imagine.

[Not Myself]

You know less about this than many high school students.

I'm glad your experience with high school students has been more positive than mine

You're still suck on the "hit a bullet with a bullet" layman's misconception.

I can count many successful bicycle rendezvous, and have even had somewhat extended conversations with the other cyclist.  Slightly slower bullets   Developed this rendezvous technique after the 1960s, but we had the space programme to learn from.

[Not Myself]

Everyone but you knows how to do it, and how it was done.

I'm pretty sure there exist other people who don't know how to do it.

[sts60]

I didn't say it couldn't land on the moon.  I just think the Soviet Union had a predilection for lying...

So, an uninformed appeal to ridicule, followed by a wish-washy half-retraction.

You said you worked space station guidance.  What exactly did you do?

uninformed = false premise

No.  You are manifestly uninformed.  You've repeatedly shown you haven't the slightest knowledge of Apollo technology, science, or techniques.  You didn't even know the LM had an RCS, but that was just the latest entrant in your parade of Apollo ignorance.  I stand by my characterization.

...on ISS I took equations from a requirements document and coded them into Ada (using a HP Unix workstation and some drag and drop CASE program, called X-something).  Target code ran on an i386.

So, even if I am willing to stipulate to this claim, what you did was programming something an engineer handed you.  You've characterized yourself as an experienced aerospace engineer; you're not.  You don't know what you're talking about, and even if the few details of your alleged CV are true you're a computer programmer/technician - and I guarantee that none of the high-powered aerospace buddies you claim to have endorse your nonsense about Apollo.  And you certainly are not qualified to comment on Apollo guidance issues, despite your misrepresentation to the contrary.  That wasn't only dishonest, but also foolish; did you really think you had a chance to fool guys like Jay, ka9q, Bob, etc.?

But after reading your posts and observing the silly games you've been playing, I am no longer willing to even believe your minimal claims about doing a little coding here and working at the Cape there.  I think you've sponged up bits of stuff and thrown them out to lend yourself some spurious credibility, and since that has fallen apart, you've moved on to outright trolling.

[JayUtah]

I'm glad your experience with high school students has been more positive than mine

I said "some."  Generally the ones I meet in that context are the ones who were taking college classes I was teaching.

[stutefish]

This was more relevant a couple pages back, but I believe it is still topical now: