It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

the moon is artifical

page: 18
28
<< 15  16  17   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2009 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Well since the Indian and Japanese missions DONT have cameras with a high enough resolution they CANT!





Is that your opinion?

Perhaps you could post some data on those cameras that would corroborate your viewpoint...

Start with the information on the capabilities of the imaging systems from both the Japanese and Indian lunar probes.


Prove yourself right.
('tis satisfying)

[edit on 7-5-2009 by Exuberant1]



Link to Kaguya mission camera

www.kaguya.jaxa.jp...

About 10mtr/pixel

The Indian one Chandrayaan-1

www.isro.org...

Camera resolution about 5mtr/pixel.

So lunar lander would be about 1 pixel!

We have already seen some good video from the Kaguya mission funny they dont show any of the HUGE spires and buildings some have claimed to have seen on the NASA pictures.




posted on May, 8 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

We have already seen some good video from the Kaguya mission funny they dont show any of the HUGE spires and buildings some have claimed to have seen on the NASA pictures.


No we don't...


As zorgon said:

"Heard those same comments for China's ChangE-1, India's Chandrayaan 1 and Japan's Kaguya/Selene missions... how they would show there was nothing there...

LOL

Still waiting..."


*What zorgon means is the data has not been released - A mere fraction of a percentage of it has been made available to the public.

Those images that have been released have been carefully selected, so don't count on seeing anything in those ones currently available.


Remember, Clementine? even though they released images of the whole moon, those images released were only ever 10 percent of the actual image size....



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


No buidings on the MOON! plain and simple like most of the people who post pics that claim to show these structures/buildings!



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Read thru MANY pages of this thread, but not all. So forgive me if this has already been brought up.

Could the reason we have not been back to the moon is because the only reason to do so would be to build a moon base?

Now, building a moon base could be considered a hostile action by the country who decided to do so. What effect would that have between the countries bickering and killing and stocking up on nuclear arms against each other on earth?

Yes, I know we have an international space station, but actually claiming land on the moon is different entirly.

This is just a thought that popped up whilst reading thru these threads.

Actually, I tend to think the moon has something on it that made us not want to go back (what that is don't know)



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   
The moon is a large piece of rock that may have
originated from an impact of something against the
young Earth. Using Earth's gravity, the Moon became
what you see today because of that... gravity and the
wears-and-tears of space.

But that's just me... no imagination.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

Originally posted by zorgon

It is if you use Werner von Braun's value of the Neutral point he published in Times magazine in 1969...

"At a point 43,495 miles from the Moon, lunar gravity exerted a force equal
to the gravity of the Earth, then some 200,000 miles distant." - Wernher von Braun (Time Magazine, July 25, 1969.)


Von Braun published that? I don't think so. His name doesn't even appear in the Time magazine article. It's also important to note the full context.

At a point 43,495 miles from the moon, lunar gravity exerted a force equal to the gravity of the earth, then some 200,000 miles distant. Beyond that crest, lunar gravity predominated, and Apollo was on the "downhill" leg of its journey.

www.time.com...
industrialnews.industrialartifactsreview.com...

As is often the case, a mass consumption news source, in oversimplifying a complex point, got the details half right. Apollo 11 was on the downhill leg but not just because of the moon's gravitational influence. It is not a simple two body calculation and it has virtually nothing to do with the "neutral point". There are actually four bodies involved; Earth, the Moon, the spacecraft, and the Sun. Add to the mix the motion of both the spacecraft and the moon and the calculation for the "top of the hill" becomes a very great deal more complex than a simplistic two (static) body calculation.

The Moon's gravity is 1/6th that of Earth. As has been repeatedly demonstrated by various satellites in orbit around it. As is demonstrated by its orbital period around Earth.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 01:34 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ehomero
 


If it was a Death Star I'm just wondering why they haven't pulled the trigger yet...



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 15  16  17   >>

log in

join