Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
General Discussion / Chang'e 4
« Last post by Dalhousie on Today at 02:34:44 AM »
Mildly surprised that that nobody has mentioned the Chan'e 4 mission currently  on the way to the moon for the first landing attempt since the successful Chang'e 3 landing in 2013.

Chang'e 4 will attempt a lunar far side landing and deploy a rover.  There is also a relay satellite in EM-L2, Quegiao, already in place.  This nice little video shows the whole mission sequence https://pbs.twimg.com/ext_tw_video_thumb/1071741340134850560/pu/img/kXwG9c9d_iYtGVjd?format=jpg&name=small

The launch video can be viewed at
2
The Reality of Apollo / New Apollo 11 stills / footage discovered
« Last post by Obviousman on December 10, 2018, 02:49:53 PM »
I can't wait to see more of this:

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2018/12/apollo-11-50th-year-anniversary

The 'teaser' trailer:



3
The Reality of Apollo / Re: Closure of "Apollo to the Moon"
« Last post by bobdude11 on December 05, 2018, 01:29:45 PM »
Fortunately not completely:

Quote
Meanwhile, "Apollo to the Moon" is being replaced by "Destination Moon," a new gallery that will display many of the prior exhibition's artifacts while also expanding the focus of the hall.

"It is like ['Apollo to the Moon'] in the sense it covers the whole moon program, but it is going to be bigger," Neufeld explained. "It is going to cover all of history, from ancient dreams of going to the moon all the way up to the moon missions that are going on now."

"This new gallery will give the whole sweep of lunar exploration, with going to the moon in the 1960s as the core story," he said.

The new "Destination Moon" gallery is scheduled to debut to the public in 2022.

Also:
Quote
"We have other things here that you'll be able to see about Apollo. We have a lunar module in the main hall and it is going to stay there, open, until 2022," said Neufeld. "We will have Neil Armstrong's spacesuit opening [on display] in July 2019 for the 50th anniversary of Apollo 11. And we're going to have a special case of Apollo 11 astronaut artifacts in 2019."
4
The Reality of Apollo / Re: Closure of "Apollo to the Moon"
« Last post by apollo16uvc on December 04, 2018, 05:27:25 PM »
Making room for new film studio to fake landing on mars.
5
The Reality of Apollo / Closure of "Apollo to the Moon"
« Last post by bknight on December 04, 2018, 01:17:18 PM »
https://www.space.com/42622-smithsonian-apollo-gallery-closes.html?utm_source=sdc-newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20181204-sdc

MORE
 


The one and a quarter F-1 engine display at the entrance to the "Apollo to the Moon" gallery at the Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC used mirrors to create the appearance of there being five engines as was at the base of a Saturn V rocket.
Quote
Credit: collectSPACE.com
For more than 40 years, the "Apollo to the Moon" gallery at the National Air and Space Museum has provided millions of visitors a close-up look at some of the key artifacts from humanity's first visit to another world.
On Monday (Dec. 3), the gallery will close forever.
"This was one of the original galleries built for the museum in 1976," explained curator Michael Neufeld, during a tour of "Apollo to the Moon" streamed live on Facebook from the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C. on Friday (Nov. 30). "It has many key artifacts that are great to look at and will be coming back, eventually." [America's Space Treasures: The Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum in Pictures]

Looks like they are scaling back on Apollo.  Sad day for me, I guess there were not enough visitors to justify renovating the exhibit as is. 
6
The Hoax Theory / Re: Faking the moon landings
« Last post by Peter B on December 03, 2018, 09:45:25 AM »
The lunar samples? In short, we only have NASA’s word, and when I say we, I include the geologists. Now here’s a novel idea, why not as well as a geologist being able to request a sample for delivery, he or she could also have a “pick up in store” option where they could make an appointment and browse through those hundreds of kilos of moon soil and rocks and be allowed to choose which specimen they would like their sample taken from, and then watch, while they cut them a slice.

Maybe that could be a Thing...if geologists had the money to fly around the world and spend a few days in Houston browsing through hundreds of samples.

It's just a darn site cheaper to browse the catalog in the comfort of their own office and have the sample sent through. Remember, the catalog tells the scientist the exact type of rock in each sample, with details about its uniqueness. Go to https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/samples/ and pick a few samples at random. You never know, you might learn a bit about how each sample is a little different. And of course, if you bothered to learn a bit about science you might understand why a scientist might want one particular sample out of all those listed, rather than any other. Then, having asked for exactly that sample, she'd very quickly know whether she'd been given a piece of that specific sample as opposed to something from one of the others.

Why do you suggest your "pick up in store" option? Are you thinking of setting up a charter company to fly those cashed-up eggheads?

Quote
Examining a tiny piece of rock might indicate that it didn’t come from earth and it may even be somehow possible to determine with some degree of accuracy that it probably originated from the moon...

OMG, you finally got there. You actually accepted the idea that the Apollo rocks could have come from the Moon. Well done!

I take it then you accept the scientific consensus that these rocks, while similar to Earth rocks, also have distinct chemical differences which make terrestrial origin impossible.

Quote
...but in no way would it be possible to prove that a sample was brought back by the alleged Apollo missions.

To some extent I think you'll find scientists couldn't really care less how NASA came into possession of these rocks which you say "...probably originated from the moon..." They just want to do some good sciencey lovin' on their sample - to find out stuff about the geological history of the Moon, or something about the solar wind, or whatever.

But regardless of whether the scientists care or not how the rocks came to be on the Earth, the fact remains these Moon rocks are on the Earth. So if you accept they're Moon rocks, you now have to explain how ~380 kilograms of the stuff of the Moon is now on Earth, in a way that doesn't involve them flying through the Earth's atmosphere as meteorites.

Go on, take your time. See if you can do it without invoking the TARDIS.

Quote
NASA never put a man on the moon, which means no one has even seen, let alone examined an Apollo sample, because they simply don’t exist.

You what? So after just accepting the Apollo rocks "...probably originated from the moon..." you now say they don't exist? What are they, Schroedinger's rocks? They simultaneously came from the Moon and don't exist?

I think a little more explanation might be needed here. Like, a lot little more.

Quote
Russia would have blabbed? Even if the US and the Soviets weren’t in cahoots at the time, how would they go about proving it? They couldn’t track the Apollo missions, so the best they could do was listen in on radio transmissions coming from the direction of the moon, when they were lucky enough to be in site of the moon during a transmission. Those transmissions wouldn’t have given the Russians any cause for concern, as they did it themselves, during the Zond 5/6 missions, before the alleged Apollo 8 mission took place. A Russian voice was picked up coming from the crafts, giving the impression that the flights were manned, when it was actually a tape recording. The Zond 5 transmission supposedly had NASA flapping for a short while, thinking they’d been beaten to yet another milestone in manned space exploration.

LOL! Oh, stop it! Now we have Schroedinger's Cold War. The USSR was simultaneously "in cahoots" with the USA and causing a flap for NASA.

Quote
The Russians knew it was faked because they knew it couldn’t be done, but to accuse the US of fraud, without proof would be seen as sour grapes to the rest of the deluded world, and anyhow it was best to bite their tongue in the knowledge that they and others would now have a free licence to fake the shit out of space, and that cheap wheat sure did come in handy. It seems strange that one nation would help feed another nation with whom they were in conflict with, as wouldn’t it make more sense to help starve them?

"Da, comrade, we know that going to the Moon is impossible, we just don't know how to prove it." Do you seriously think an argument like that would work, like, anywhere?

Let me just spell this out in case I'm going too fast: if the Soviets knew that going to the Moon was impossible, all they needed to do was explain to the rest of the world what they knew. That way, the rest of the world would know that going to the Moon was impossible, meaning that the Americans going to the Moon must be impossible, meaning the Americans must be faking it. It would be a propaganda coup of the first order.

Oh, and by the way, why was it impossible for the Apollo spacecraft to go to the Moon? I forget whether you ever actually got around to explaining that.
7
General Discussion / Re: LRO HD Moon
« Last post by Zakalwe on December 02, 2018, 07:13:02 AM »
The rille is Vallis Schroteri is the largest valley on the Moon an is thought to have formed by a lava flow which eroded the substrate.

The ghost craters, Aristarchas F (directly below the bright Aristarchus) and Prinz (to the right and above Aristarchus) were formed when lava flows flooded the craters and partially eroded their feature. The volcanic vent that is thought to have flooded Prinz is just above and slightly to the right of the crater's centreline.

The whole area is fascinating from a Lunar geology point of view. Aristarchus is a relatively new crater, some 450 million years old and is the site of radon gas emissions and transient Lunar phenomena.

If this stuff is of interest then it's worth downloading the Virtual Moon Atlas. You can add high resolution data to the base program with 120 metre resolution data sets available form the LRO down to 60 metre resolution from Chang'e 2 probe.


8
General Discussion / Re: LRO HD Moon
« Last post by bknight on December 01, 2018, 03:50:06 PM »
Aristarchus. Wikipedia says it was formed 450 million years ago and identifies a bunch of probably secondary impact craters.

Here's a map of the features.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_(crater)#/media/File:Aristarchus_satellite_craters.jpg

From that image it may be a low angle impact judging from the rays of debris emanating from the crater.
9
General Discussion / Re: LRO HD Moon
« Last post by ajv on December 01, 2018, 03:07:21 PM »
Aristarchus. Wikipedia says it was formed 450 million years ago and identifies a bunch of probably secondary impact craters.

Here's a map of the features.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_(crater)#/media/File:Aristarchus_satellite_craters.jpg
10
General Discussion / Re: LRO HD Moon
« Last post by smartcooky on December 01, 2018, 02:39:55 PM »
Interesting shot this (at around 1:30 on the video)




The bright crater on the bottom right quadrant appears to be very deep, and the two craters at 2 o'clock and 5 o'clock to it are partially filled in. Also to the right in that quadrant (from about 1 o'clock to about 4 o'clock), you can see faint radial patterns in the lunar dust. This would seem to indicate that the bright crater must have been a relatively recent impact by comparison with the other two.

Were those craters filled in by material from the impact that formed the bright crater?
Were they filled in gradually over many millions of years of falling space-dust
Were they filled by some other process?

Also, there are some channels/cracks with a particularly large one emanating from the crater a 8 o'clock from the bright crater.

What could have caused those channels? Flowing molten lunar material from the impact? Ancient water flow? Was the surface cracked by the impact?



Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10