Moonshot23 Moon and nebula pics

Orion is a new kind of craft (relatively), capable of housing twice as many crew as went to the moon previously, with many technological upgrades on previous craft including but not limited to having an auto-docking capability, brand new waste management system instead of having to "go" in bags like they did on Apollo, and the craft designed to be re-usable.

Presumably safety is a bigger issue now, too. Orion was designed to replace the Space Shuttle after the last one exploded. Apollo had its flaws on this point too. Personally, I'll forgive them for taking their time getting it right this time rather than sending craft that are hit-and-miss spaceworthy.

How about responding to the facts about the Van Allen belts. How did the first Apollo go through these. NASA says they have lost the technology that allowed them to leave the belts in the 60's & 70s but yet you still think it happened. That is almost laughable. We will just go with this. You support NASA, FUNNY. I myself am not that ignorant. I will go with what I see and what makes logical sense. Go check how many Apollo astronauts are still alive. Then look at how some of them died.

Grissom and the other two were killed because Gus didn't go along with the BS cover up He was going to blow the lid. So they killed him on the pad. You do understand that there is two pictures of the same area of the moon were the lander is in a way different position. We also know that it did not land, Take off, and then land again. Just this one fact alone seals the del for me. These are NASA's own pictures they released. You really should educate yourself on this issue. You obviously do not know too much about it.

You did notice that the Orion looks relatively the same as Apollo. They are still trying to figure out how to get it out of the belts. 50 years after they supposedly did it.

So what is your research into the distance to the moon, how did you calculate it? I’m interested in trying it with my kit

Dave H Im good on this question.......It is a educated assumption.
 


How about responding to the facts about the Van Allen belts. How did the first Apollo go through these. NASA says they have lost the technology that allowed them to leave the belts in the 60's & 70s but yet you still think it happened. That is almost laughable. We will just go with this. You support NASA, FUNNY. I myself am not that ignorant. I will go with what I see and what makes logical sense.

Well, it took me all of thirty seconds of internet searches to answer this one.

It's nothing to do with "lost technology that we had in the 60's & 70's", it was that they picked a route that circumnavigated the first belt completely and the astronauts were travelling so quickly through the second belt that the effects were too low to affect them.

Consent Form | Popular Science

Go check how many Apollo astronauts are still alive. Then look at how some of them died.

Grissom and the other two were killed because Gus didn't go along with the BS cover up He was going to blow the lid. So they killed him on the pad.

Grissom's death sounds pretty straightforward to me.

"Launch Pad 34 at Cape Kennedy. Astronauts Grissom, White, and Chaffee, who were working inside the Command Module, were asphyxiated. The fire's ignition source was never determined, but their deaths were attributed to a wide range of lethal hazards in the early CSM design and conditions of the test, including a pressurized 100 percent oxygen prelaunch atmosphere, wiring and plumbing flaws, flammable materials used in the cockpit and in the astronauts' flight suits, and an inward-opening hatch that could not be opened quickly in an emergency and not at all with full internal pressure."

Gus Grissom - Wikipedia

You do understand that there is two pictures of the same area of the moon were the lander is in a way different position. We also know that it did not land, Take off, and then land again. Just this one fact alone seals the del for me. These are NASA's own pictures they released. You really should educate yourself on this issue. You obviously do not know too much about it.

Presumably you can back this statement up with the actual photos?

Also, you're aware there have been six manned missions to the moon, right? Are you sure that one of the photos wasn't mislabelled or you've got the wrong end of the stick when looking at them?

Either way, I'd be interested in looking at your evidence for this, as I haven't managed to find anything about there being photographs of a single lander in two different positions from searching the net for a few minutes.

You did notice that the Orion looks relatively the same as Apollo. They are still trying to figure out how to get it out of the belts. 50 years after they supposedly did it..

A Triumph TR7 "looks relatively the same as" a Ferrari F40 but they're very much not the same car.
 
Last edited:
Dave H Im good on this question.......It is a educated assumption.

Ah, so you looked at the moon and said it looks closer than they say?

I looked at my data from the Lunar eclipse back in Jan and was able to repeat the experiment the Greeks did and got a fairly close figure to the established fact.
 
Seen some ufos reported on the news lately by military pilots and its been took seriously by that authority, there's no doubt ufos exist and if people keep pointing their telescope into space sooner or later they are going to see 1.
 
Well, it took me all of thirty seconds of internet searches to answer this one.

It's nothing to do with "lost technology that we had in the 60's & 70's", it was that they picked a route that circumnavigated the first belt completely and the astronauts were travelling so quickly through the second belt that the effects were too low to affect them.

:) :) 1960s , first time landing, all filmed perfectly for a TV audience. It 100% has legs it bullshit.

There was a short article on the BBC yesterday that didn’t make the main pages. I hadn’t noticed it but don’t check the science section everyday.

Space.com can often be a good source of news
Touchdown! Incredible Photos Show 2nd Asteroid Landing by Japan's Hayabusa2

black and white grainy footage if I've watched the correct video ? So even shitter than the 60's ....hmmmm.
 
Last edited:
Lets just make this thread about looking into space with brilliant kit rather than speculating on conspiracy theories.
 
Lets just make this thread about looking into space with brilliant kit rather than speculating on conspiracy theories.

Tell your mate that. It's him claiming that "this one shows towers the size of mountains - they weren't there the next day when I photographed the same area so they must have cloaked up". :lol:
 
Tell your mate that. It's him claiming that "this one shows towers the size of mountains - they weren't there the next day when I photographed the same area so they must have cloaked up". :lol:
There is towers on the moon but imo its frozen lather that has shot out the moons crust and frozen due to the temperature, I don't know this for a fact but its my opinion and everyone is entitled to an opinion without being ridiculed.
 
There is towers on the moon but imo its frozen lather that has shot out the moons crust and frozen due to the temperature, I don't know this for a fact but its my opinion and everyone is entitled to an opinion without being ridiculed.

In matters of science, opinions are meaningless without backing them up with either material evidence or equations. Otherwise, you should expect to be ridiculed.
 
In matters of science, opinions are meaningless without backing them up with either material evidence or equations. Otherwise, you should expect to be ridiculed.
We aren't scientists marra. He's got a git big telescope and is over enthusiastic and imaginitative I find his work entertaining and I find yours to be a bit argumentative and off putting. Chill out man you are becoming pricey mk II. nobody else has a 'problem' with him posting his stuff on here just you and pricey give it a rest man, keep posting but try not to be such a stickler chisel chest, later slappy
 

Back
Top