Why has NASA never gone back to the moon?

Why not return to the moon? Maybe because they never really went there in the first place (manned mission).
Funny how that one phone call from the moon to Pr Nixon had no time delay.

reply to post by CosmicCitizen


???

Funny how that one phone call from the moon to Pr Nixon had no time delay.

Yet more lies and disinfo??

Here....it isn't really a "conversation"....Nixon spoke his speech, they listened.

You can hear the bloody delay in the video, here!!!:



Hear it?? You can hear the cross-talk when Houston calls them, at the beginning.

Obviously, too.....we are hearing it from one side....Earthside. SO, at the end of Armstrong's speech, when he finished, you, me, Nixon and everyone else on Earth heard him finish at same time. THEN< Nixon replied and ended the call.

Time delay is in there, just as you see it with some very long-dealy TV satellite hookups, even today...depends on how hte signal gets routed, especially when someone is in a very remote area.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Weed, why call theories and assumptions facts??

Oh, and we know precisely the Moon's mass and density (and therefore its acceleration due to gravity)...this is obvisous. Else, NONE of the spacecraft ever sent there would have made it. You MUST know these things, for the orbital mechanics calculations. AKA "rocket science".

Show me how we know "precisely" what the Moon's mass and density are..
BTW, you then go on about the Earths core and magnetic field which is also theories and assumptions..

I think you need to be educated on what is a FACT as opposed to a theory or assumption..
Till then maybe you should backoff with your rude, incorrect statements...

reply to post by backinblack


We used to have geat posters here in the past with in-depth knowledge of ufology and the black budget programs of the military-industrial complex. Guess what? They all quit because they could not take the constant harrasment of disinfo agents...and I don't blame them!

Too bad because we could have learned real information rather than nasa propaganda. If I want BS all I have to do is turn on my tv set and listen for hours and hours so whats the point of hearing the same # here? Its sad these people didn't get the respect they deserved because our corrupt governments think were not entitled to anything other than half-truths and outright lies.......

reply to post by backinblack


Do you really not understand that IF the mass of the Moon was any different than has been already published, then none of our spacecraft would have ever made it to rendezvous? Same with masses of other planets...Mars. Venus. Mercury. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune.....

Do you not understand any of the science of orbital mechanics, Kepler's Laws, Newtonian Laws of motion?

The orbits of the planets are calculated very accurately, from observation. Centuries of data collected, refined, improved constantly, with more and better accuracy, due to increased precision and technology.

Is it possible you have never learned this? Hard to believe. I'd think even in elementary (primary) school curricula, all over most of the developed World, this would be at least included, even if very basic.

When the orbits are very accurately defined and described, then the math fits...and the mass is derived similarly.
By observation and measurement of OTHER bodies that orbit the one you are determining mass for.

[color=gold]We would like to know how scientist calculate a planet's mass. Please explain it to us in a way that a 4th grader can understand it.

Part of the answer:

.....For example, if we see a moon orbiting a planet at certain distance from it, the orbital period of the moon at that particular distance will depend on the planet's mass only. Heavier the planet, stronger it attracts the moon and faster the moon moves. It is straightforward for astronomers to calculate the planet's mass after they have observed the motion of one of its moons for a while.
curious.astro.cornell.edu...

Similarly, using artificial satellites, can then observe and determine the gravitational field of, say...the Moon! Some early space shots were intended to do just that. The basic "guesses" were in place, first of course. Duh. You look at the Moon, measure its diameter. You then "guess" at its average density. We know the Earth's density, and we know the Moon is a solid body...just not all the details, yet, of its interior makeup.

So, you can "guess" at a density range, using Earth as your guide. You refine it, as you observe how your spacecraft is affected....it's of course not that simple, in actual practice. But, if you know the math, then I suppose it is...that's why they are called "rocket scientists" and mathematicians.......

Weed, you are debating someone who doesn't even understand grade school level science, has been raised on internet conspiracy and thinks you are a disinfo agent. In other words, your wasting your time.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


I just can't abide people that state theories as fact..
Even the cause of gravity is still hottly debated as is what's at the Earth's core and how the magnetic field is created..
It's all theories....

So stating the mass of the Moon as a fact when in reality it's merely an estimate based on theories is simply outlandish...

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Sorry, but your post? From a person who (do you still?) believes that the Moon doesn't rotate about its axis?

Sorry, but there are no "NASA propagandists". There, are, however certain people (like John Lear, for example) who love to spin a good yarn, and watch people fall for it...the more ridiculous, the more they chuckle to themselves, I imagine.

The members who post such things? Except for Lear, many are most still here....actually, the good ones who are really leaving (quitting)?? They ones who bring facts and evidence and knowleldge....like, Phage and Maybe...Maybe Not. Both (apparently) run off by the influx of nonsense and ignorance that abounds.

Some are still here, but grow weary of fending off the foolishness.... and just lurk.



The "UFO"ology is sound....as long as you stay in the realm of solid, sane 'evidence'...there is a LOT out there, and it is being dirtied by the many, many inane ideas from the fringes.

"Black Ops"?? Plenty of that, still. You have no idea......and, and Black Ops tie better with the good UFOlogy. IN fact, I see very little of the more wild fantasis related to Black projects. Some....again, though...most of that ilk lead back to Lear, once more, as the source....or, the "instigator"...

reply to post by weedwhacker

Sorry, but your post? From a person who (do you still?) believes that the Moon doesn't rotate about its axis?

Does the moon rotate??
You will say yes, it rotates once in each orbit..
I'd say it maybe just a perception..
Like if I carried a basketball in the same position and ran around the world is that ball actually rotating?
Certainly not from my perspective...

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
Weed, you are debating someone who doesn't even understand grade school level science, has been raised on internet conspiracy and thinks you are a disinfo agent. In other words, your wasting your time.

Yep, and knows the difference between theory and fact, you??

So why don't you educate me..
Lets start with the earths core and the cause of the magnetic field..
Please use links with PROOF....

Here is some real information:





Part 1 of each series, so check out the rest on your own!

NASA didn't go alone to the moon. DOD took the "Hot Rod" (Project Orion) along with Apollo as a back up in case Apollo needed a rescue.

Want to see the "Hot Rod"? It violated a Treaty we had at the time, hence why it's been kept secret:

www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Dropping little nulear bombs behind you then detonating them for propulsion....what a wicked ride Orion propulsion must have been. That's why NASA no longer goes to the moon. DOD's space travel methods are much more efficient.

Project Rover put space tugs in orbit. Ever look to the skies at night and stare at something you think is a satellite....then get shocked to see it just did a 90* turn at high speed? Small nuclear blast changed it's course. They use them to move satellites around.

NASA didn't hide DOD's "Hot Rod" that Apollo photoraphed on the moon. It's pictured above. Now see why there are so many nuclear blast craters in Nevada? Those were lift off sites where the "Hot Rod" was blasted into space.

You can see lines on the moon of the blast craters from the "Hot Rod" as it got a little too close to the moons surface:
www.hq.nasa.gov...
Look for those telltale lines of blast craters....from the Orion propulsion blasts. Got pretty close to the lunar surface didn't they?

Now see why DOD's moon travels must be kept secret? Americans would be irrate they are suffering in poverty while the national wealth was used to build small nuclear powered space rovers, the "Hot Rod" medium sized spacecraft...and what we have today.....full fledged Legacy Class starships.

Nobody else on Earth comes close. Ain't no alien ufo's. It's all evolved from the first flight in '59 from using explosives for propulsion.

www.youtube.com...

The Alien mafia told them never to return maybe??

There isnt the money these days to go to the moon, and maybe the original moon landing were faked just to get one over on the russians

reply to post by Pervius


Gee that's amazing and them things are huge..

It's also incredible how they are created to NOT leave a shadow.

..nm

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by backinblack

 

Do you really not understand that IF the mass of the Moon was any different than has been already published, then none of our spacecraft would have ever made it to rendezvous? Same with masses of other planets...Mars. Venus. Mercury. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune.....

Not only that, but if the Moon's mass were significantly different, then the tides observed at the seashore would be different from what is measured. We can directly measure the distance from the Earth to the Moon using parallax. Simple trig gives us the size of the Moon, and therefore the volume. The tides give us a good hack on the mass.

Mass / Volume = Density. QED. Grade school math. It works. Suck it.

How come no one has ever come forward with images via telescope of the moon with structures or so on?

reply to post by Saint Exupery

The tides give us a good hack on the mass.

Mass / Volume = Density. QED. Grade school math. It works. Suck it.

I'll go with volume as a fact but this??

The tides give us a good hack on the mass

Wouldn't get you a gold star even in grade school.....

reply to post by macman


Earth-based telescopes just don't have the resolution (yet). The "Very Large Array" in Chile...MIGHT, if effort were put forth, and its entire systems were used. But, more important things to look at, when there is only a fringe element of people who believe in the Apollo "hoax".

Meanwhile, the LROC and LRO camera missions took a lot of good photos. Here, a guy did some enhancements,using a technique that he explains:

All images were initially aligned relative to LRO photo M116161085R since this particular photo featured the least amount of distortion. In other words, the LRO was basically looking nearly straight down at the Apollo 11 landing site when photo M116161085R was taken and the landing site is close to the vertical axis of the image. All photos were then registered with M116161085R by aligning the LM's +Y footpad (the north footpad) in each photo atop of the +Y footpad in photo M116161085R. Next, all photos were rotated as necessary about the +Y footpad in order to achieve rotational alignment using small features located west of the +Y footpad.

A note about the resolutions described in my video:

Photo resolution, expressed in either feet or meters per pixel in my video merely is the photo's image scale when my video is viewed at 1280x720 HD resolution and is not the inherent maximum resolution of the deconvolved LRO photos. The maximum inherent resolution achieved so far in any of my deconvolved and enhanced LRO photos is approximately 0.35 meters per pixel. Horizontal and vertical surface coverage for any photo can be calculated by multiplying 1280 or 720 by the stated resolution. Thus 0.5 feet per pixel, when multiplied by 1280 and 720, yields photo coverage of 640 feet horizontally by 360 feet vertically.

The technique he used is called "deconvolution"...it uses mathematical algorithms, and is beyond me in technology, but is found in references online if you look it up. It's a valid technique in digital photography.

An article on deconvolution: www.cv.nrao.edu...

And from Wiki too: en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


As I said.....LEAR.....and, you just tossed in the other one who delights in spinning yarns...HOAGLAND. (His nickname is "hoax"land, ya know).

Thanks, you have just demonstrated my point.