NASA prepared in advance, moon disaster speech

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by KingDeeCee

I'm not going to trust myself on this one, but I was listening to Joe Rogans podcast and he said something about this radio belt that would rip the skin off any normal person? I don't know if this is true or not. He also brings up a good point of why we haven't been up there ever since.
Posted via RS Mobile

Man used to think the moon was made of cheese.

Then we went to there and discovered it wasn't.

We haven't been back since.

BEHOLD THE POWER OF CHEESE!

[Manic!]

Originally Posted by jigga250

I REALLY hope so....starving to death would be the worst way to go

I think the lack of oxygen would get them first.

[Manic!]

Originally Posted by JD¹³

Whether or not man landed on the moon is relatively simple to prove. All someone has to do is research the exact locations of the numerous landings and point a high-powered telescope at them. The bottom half of the lunar landers, flags, and rovers will still be there. Has anyone ever done this? If so where are the photos and the proof.....?
Posted via RS Mobile

Ever watch the Big bang theory

Skip to 2:20

YouTube

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by JD¹³

I saw that page after posing the question. Is NASA trying to tell us that they sent a satellite up there to take photos specifically of the lunar landing sites

No, they aren't. http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/EPO/LROC/lr...?pg=objectives

and all they came back with are photos as grainy and low-res as the ones the astronauts took from orbit 40+ years ago? With modern technology those photos are the best they got?

http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/EPO/LROC/lr...specifications

I call BS. I'd also prefer to see imagery from a 3rd party source. On the NASA website they mention photographing the lunar landing sites here: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news...05/11jul_lroc/

Yeah, did you actually read that?

Its primary mission is not to photograph old Apollo landing sites, but it will photograph them, many times, providing the first recognizable images of Apollo relics since 1972.

Originally Posted by JD¹³

And yet the Hubble telescope is able to get this image from an area of the night sky smaller than a 1mm by 1mm square of paper held 1m away from your eyes. Seems like a glorious contradiction to me.

Apples and oranges. Hubble is different technology, different optics, different design and mainly, different objectives.

Focal length on LROC's narrow-field cameras is 700mm (about equivalent to a high-end SLR camera lens). Hubble's is 57.6m - over 82X higher "zoom". LROC primary mirror diameter is 195mm... Hubble's is 2.4m (over 12X the diameter and over 150X the surface area).

I can't find any specs on the actual dimensions of the LROC orbiter, but Hubble is a beast - the whole thing weighs over 12 TONS.

Seriously, you're comparing a VGA-resolution cell-phone camera to a 35MP medium-format SLR here.

Or more in keeping with the site: a bicycle with a little gas chainsaw motor on the back wheel, vs. a Veyron. Not really a fair comparison.

[Ilagon]

If you guys really want to watch a good documentary about this mission, go watch For All Mankind. You really get the understanding of what was going through the mind of these astronauts. This is available on Netflix BTW.

http://www.criterion.com/films/599-for-all-mankind