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

[dwight]

Alex, this wire claim was debunked on the old board about eight years ago. Next?
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=608&page=1

I see the guy who argued for it was banned.

For violating the Terms of Service.

It seems the terms of service only apply to dissidents.

Did this Jules Verne steampunk looking thing actually land on the moon?
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/LROCiotw/Lunokhod1.jpg

So what's your idea of what a lunar rover should look like, and why?

Something like this http://littleurl.info/hwc ?

[nomuse]

I suspect that he has found the anti-Apollo pages of a certain CT author..

Yes, he's been cribbing from Aulis the whole time.  Not as if he's keeping that a secret.  I just wonder where the Gish Gallop is heading.

I debunked one of the Aulis claims myself using a graphic editor.

I debunked several using a brain.

[gillianren]

Dwight, the funny thing is that one of the things Homer asked for is now standard--until quite recently, I drove a van that was about as old as that episode, and I can promise you that cup holders have gotten bigger.  The cup holders on my old van wouldn't hold anything larger than a can of soda, and on the new (2002) car, you can fit a twenty-ounce bottle.

[Andromeda]

That seems to be a very American thing.  I don't think I have ever seen a car with more than one tiny cup holder - my current one is 2008 and has none!

[Noldi400]

The ascent is a little more involved.

"Pitchover" is the beginning of a programmed set of attitudes that gradually deflect from the local vertical, aimed downrange, at various timed intervals designed to optimally achieve the proper altitude, direction, and downrange velocity.  Prior to pitchover, the program is "go straight up."  That's the terrain avoidance maneuver.  If the pilot had a working "eight ball" (and it could be zeroed manually) then Mission Control could read him a series of pitch angles to fly.

Aldrin could probably have computed a line-of-sight rendezvous, as he did with Gemini.  And yes, that's why he was on the Apollo 11 mission.  His nickname was "Dr. Rendezvous."

Computed, yes. It was the physical execution I was wondering about, given the design limitations of the human neurological system.

[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?

[JayUtah]

I didn't say it couldn't land on the moon.

Indeed, you didn't say anything that would inform a reader why you had posted it.  You ignored the straightforward answers to your questions and pounced on the ones that assumed you were making yet another hoax claim.

Childish much?

I just think the Soviet Union had a predilection for lying.

Ambiguous much?  You take people to task for assuming you were going to say the Russian rover wasn't credible, then you drop another hint that the Russians aren't credible.

When you're finished playing games, there are several serious questions awaiting you about your claims.

I think the robot looks very cool.  I might build one some day.  It reminds me of Crab Fu.

Who cares?   Troll much?

[JayUtah]

...you can fit a twenty-ounce bottle.

I hire and work with some of the most consummate nerds on the planet.  "Cup holder" for them means 64-128 oz.

[Bob B.]

When I think about "cup size" soda bottles aren't the first think that pops into my head.

[Chew]

When I think about "cup size" soda bottles aren't the first think that pops into my head.

+1

[Andromeda]

When I think about "cup size" soda bottles aren't the first think that pops into my head.

+1

 

[dwight]

Who says dicsussions here are boring??

[alexsanchez]

Did this Jules Verne steampunk looking thing actually land on the moon?
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/LROCiotw/Lunokhod1.jpg

Well if it didn't.....there goes the standard hoax defence

To paraphrase.....if the Russians could land their laser reflectors on the Moon.....the Apollo ones could also be unmanned. Only they appear at the exact spot the Lunar Modules landed......photographed by the LROC of course.

Any response to your foot shooting post? Care to back peddle and say...."of course they could"?

Here is NASA image 20385 and 20837.  2 shots on the same roll of film directly from the nasa.gov website.  Why is the earth seen on the second pic but not the first?  The sun's glint on the helmet in both pics is the same and the reflection in the visor is almost the same, which means the camera is in about the same place, not from a completely different angle horizontally or vertically.  How did the earth get into the 2nd pic? (lemmie guess... it's been debunked before...)  This is why people have questions.  Of course, NASA wouldn't have been so stupid to let this slip by I think.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20385.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20387.jpg

[Trebor]

Who says dicsussions here are boring??

Oh; the discussions are not, and I even learn things from them.

The conspiracy theorist (and his many socks) are boring and repetitive.

[Jason Thompson]

Here is NASA image 20385 and 20837.

I don't care about those images. Answer the outstanding questions:

What degree of precision is needed for a luanr liftoff and rendezvous in terms of knowing the position of the LM on the surface?

What are your qualifications?

Do you know where Stanley Kubrick lived and worked during the time you say he was faking Apollo footage?

The sun's glint on the helmet in both pics is the same and the reflection in the visor is almost the same, which means the camera is in about the same place, not from a completely different angle horizontally or vertically.

It is blatantly obvious from the flag and the astronaut that the second picture was taken from a lower angle. Your ignorance of the record shows again as you are evidently unaware that things like this were actually seen on the TV footage, in which you can actually watch the astronaut taking the picture crouch down to get the angle needed to get the Earth in shot.

Not only that, in the really high resolution versions of those images you can see the astronaut taking the picture reflected in the visor, and you can see clearly the difference in his posture in each picture.

You need to do better than that if you're going to convince us you have any idea what you are talking about.

Now, about those questions you keep evading...