It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# Please Debunk The Moon Landing Hoax For Me...

page: 29
15
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 05:19 AM

Originally posted by Valar God

Originally posted by steveknows

Originally posted by Valar God
...

You don't burn fuel all the way to anywhere in space including the moon. You burn fuel to push off and depending on how far you have to go and where you're are going is how long you have to push off for. Once you're on your way to your desired velocity you cann the rockets or else you'll end up going faster than you want and overshoot your target or burn up more fuel than you wanted in order slow down. So you only need enough fuel to start, slow down, stop start again and then slow down and stop or slow down and re enter.

And you know that how ?

From the Moon missions ?

LOL.

Are we going in circle here ?

I'll probably regret trying to explain this, but in the words of the oft-quoted ATS motto, "Deny Ignorance"...so I'll give it a shot.

Funny you should mention going in circles...but that gives me a good segue to work with, so I'll use it.
Let's start with Isaac Newton. Please note that Sir Newton didn't work for NASA, so he's probably immune to the whole "NASA paid shill" accusation. He derived three general laws describing the motion of bodies, and their velocity. His "First Law" is the one that we'll need to look at here. For convenience sake, here it is:

"Every body persists in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by force impressed."

That's the English translation of Newton's own writing (he used Latin). In simpler English, a body at rest remains at rest, and a body in motion moves in a straight line, unless acted on by an outside force. What, you ask, does this have to do with orbital mechanics and / or the flight to the Moon? Bear with me a bit longer, and I'll tie this together, and come back to your point, I promise.

People have been observing the planets (and the Moon, for that matter) since there were people here. Six thousand years ago, we used the naked eye. Since Galileo's day, we've used telescopes of increasing sophistication. As with Sir Isaac Newton, please note that prehistoric astronomers, and Galileo, for that matter, are well beyond NASA's reach. Observations of Lunar and planetary motion dating back hundreds (if not thousands) of years show that the planets move in constant orbital paths whose only curves are the direct and mathematically predictable result of gravity (and there's Sir Isaac again, with his laws of gravitation, derived from exactly the sort of observations I'm referring to). The one thing nobody has ever seen are the huge rocket engines / draft animals / angels that keep pulling the planets in their courses. That's because there isn't anything providing them with acceleration....in space, it's not necessary. Why not, you ask? Because in space, absent such sources of friction as a dense atmosphere, motion is governed solely by Newtonian laws. No external force has to keep acting on planets to keep them moving, because there is no friction causing them to decelerate.

The Apollo capsules (or, for that matter, the satellites that orbit the Earth above a certain altitude) don't require constant thrust to maintain their trajectories because there's nothing slowing them down, and Newton's first law of motion reigns supreme. The science behind this claim literally isn't rocket science...it predates manned rocketry by around three hundred years....and the observations that led to and supported that science predate the science itself by a few hundred more.

posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 05:24 AM

Originally posted by GrassyKnoll

Originally posted by theXammux
Assuming someone was willing to spend millions of dollars just to end this silly debate...

If this debate is silly to you; why do you bother replying?

The ONUS is on NASA to prove astronauts walked the surface of the earth.

Why on earth is it silly to question suspicious explanations?

NASA did prove it in 1969. It's up to the tools who ignore the information to prove otherwise. And I mean real proof not hearsay or some stupid website with no solid foundation for the claims that it didn't happen.
edit on 9-9-2011 by steveknows because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 05:34 AM

Originally posted by Valar God

Originally posted by steveknows

Originally posted by Valar God
...

You don't burn fuel all the way to anywhere in space including the moon. You burn fuel to push off and depending on how far you have to go and where you're are going is how long you have to push off for. Once you're on your way to your desired velocity you cann the rockets or else you'll end up going faster than you want and overshoot your target or burn up more fuel than you wanted in order slow down. So you only need enough fuel to start, slow down, stop start again and then slow down and stop or slow down and re enter.

And you know that how ?

From the Moon missions ?

LOL.

Are we going in circle here ?

No because I've loved science since I was a kid. Go play a game of air hockey and observe. Mind you the table isn't in a vacuum, but observation can be a powerful thing.

posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 07:04 AM

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer

Originally posted by Valar God

Originally posted by steveknows

Originally posted by Valar God
...

...

...

I'll probably regret trying to explain this, but in the words of the oft-quoted ATS motto, "Deny Ignorance"...so I'll give it a shot.

Funny you should mention going in circles...but that gives me a good segue to work with, so I'll use it.
Let's start with Isaac Newton. Please note that Sir Newton didn't work for NASA, so he's probably immune to the whole "NASA paid shill" accusation. He derived three general laws describing the motion of bodies, and their velocity. His "First Law" is the one that we'll need to look at here. For convenience sake, here it is:

"Every body persists in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by force impressed."

That's the English translation of Newton's own writing (he used Latin). In simpler English, a body at rest remains at rest, and a body in motion moves in a straight line, unless acted on by an outside force. What, you ask, does this have to do with orbital mechanics and / or the flight to the Moon? Bear with me a bit longer, and I'll tie this together, and come back to your point, I promise.

People have been observing the planets (and the Moon, for that matter) since there were people here. Six thousand years ago, we used the naked eye. Since Galileo's day, we've used telescopes of increasing sophistication. As with Sir Isaac Newton, please note that prehistoric astronomers, and Galileo, for that matter, are well beyond NASA's reach. Observations of Lunar and planetary motion dating back hundreds (if not thousands) of years show that the planets move in constant orbital paths whose only curves are the direct and mathematically predictable result of gravity (and there's Sir Isaac again, with his laws of gravitation, derived from exactly the sort of observations I'm referring to). The one thing nobody has ever seen are the huge rocket engines / draft animals / angels that keep pulling the planets in their courses. That's because there isn't anything providing them with acceleration....in space, it's not necessary. Why not, you ask? Because in space, absent such sources of friction as a dense atmosphere, motion is governed solely by Newtonian laws. No external force has to keep acting on planets to keep them moving, because there is no friction causing them to decelerate.

The Apollo capsules (or, for that matter, the satellites that orbit the Earth above a certain altitude) don't require constant thrust to maintain their trajectories because there's nothing slowing them down, and Newton's first law of motion reigns supreme. The science behind this claim literally isn't rocket science...it predates manned rocketry by around three hundred years....and the observations that led to and supported that science predate the science itself by a few hundred more.

A lot of talk but no valid arguments.

Isaac Newton didn't CREATE laws of physics.

Isaac Newton was an iluminati.

If you want to put it that way, the way that I already heard numerous times,
the ultimate way that people trying to persuade someone into Moon landing when they run
out of any valid argument, tell me this then:

How fast do you travel using the rocket system trough the air (atmosphere) ?

How fast do you travel using the rocket system trough the water ?
(with the same speed of fuel combustion as above)

How fast do you travel using the same rocket system trough space ?

Tell me this in relative numbers.

Tell me how you KNOW that, not how you ASSUME that.

Or in other words, NOT how you WOULD LIKE IT TO BE, or how you IMAGINED it to be.

Let me guess.

You don't KNOW anything, right ?

Right ...

EDIT:

As for the non-existance of the force pushing the planets:

How do you know that there is no force still pushing the planets ?

Can you explain then, which non-existent force is FORCING the planet's orbits
to be aligned with one another, like in the same "plate".
(my english is lacking here, you should know what I mean).

edit on 9-9-2011 by Valar God because: more data

posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 07:14 AM

Originally posted by steveknows

Originally posted by Valar God

Originally posted by steveknows

Originally posted by Valar God
...

You don't burn fuel all the way to anywhere in space including the moon. You burn fuel to push off and depending on how far you have to go and where you're are going is how long you have to push off for. Once you're on your way to your desired velocity you cann the rockets or else you'll end up going faster than you want and overshoot your target or burn up more fuel than you wanted in order slow down. So you only need enough fuel to start, slow down, stop start again and then slow down and stop or slow down and re enter.

And you know that how ?

From the Moon missions ?

LOL.

Are we going in circle here ?

No because I've loved science since I was a kid. Go play a game of air hockey and observe. Mind you the table isn't in a vacuum, but observation can be a powerful thing.

Hey man, excellent explanation.

I am very glad for you that you loved science when you were a kid.

Why don't YOU go play a game of hockey considering that you got no explanation ?

(OMG, these people who BELIEVE in Moon landing are all the same.)

posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 07:19 AM

I would love to hear an explanation from Moon landing BELIEVERS
why there were no Moon missions in the last 50 years ?

I have never heard that one.

And an answer to a thing that poked my eyes even when I was 10 years old.
How were "the first steps" filmed from outside the spacecraft ?
The answer to this one must be a hilarious one.

Thanks, lol.

posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 09:15 AM

Originally posted by Valar God

I would love to hear an explanation from Moon landing BELIEVERS
why there were no Moon missions in the last 50 years ?

I have never heard that one.

And an answer to a thing that poked my eyes even when I was 10 years old.
How were "the first steps" filmed from outside the spacecraft ?
The answer to this one must be a hilarious one.

Thanks, lol.

Judging by your attitude towards science and technology I am surprisied you have got the internet were you live?
Do all your fellow countrymen have same grasp of science that you do? ie NONE!

posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 09:30 AM
reply to post by Valar God

I would love to hear an explanation from Moon landing BELIEVERS
why there were no Moon missions in the last 50 years ?

Because the country that all others looked up to in the aspect of space exploration, decided it would rather spend it's money killing people to 'protect its freedom'.

And, we are now waiting for other countries and space agencies to catch up and take on that role.
edit on 9/9/2011 by Griffo because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 09:37 AM

I guess you have never seen the movie Capricorn One! It was necessary to launch a Rocket to give the appearance that the moon mission was real. The rocket never reached orbit, they would deploy the capsule over the ocean be picked up by either Submarine or Aircraft Carrier. So yes , your mummy and daddy did see a real rocket launch.

posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 09:49 AM
**Big snip for the sake of brevity**

A lot of talk but no valid arguments.

You wondered how I "knew" that there was no need to burn fuel all the way from Earth to the Moon, and you wanted an explanation that didn't rely on observations of the Apollo spacecraft. What, exactly, would you consider a fitting explanation? I'll even do my best to leave big words and / or calculus out of it, if you wish.

Isaac Newton didn't CREATE laws of physics.

I never said he 'created' them. They're pretty much 'built in' to the universe at the fundamental level. What he *did* do, and quite effectively, was boil down a lot of observational and anecdotal data into a set of (relatively) simple mathematical statements that allowed the impact of those preexisting natural laws to be accurately predicted.

Isaac Newton was an iluminati.

And this has what, exactly, to do with his laws of motion or gravitation? I really don't give a rat's rosy *deleted to save a moderator the trouble* what Sir Isaac Newton believed / practiced / worshiped....for purposes of a discussion of planetary bodies (or orbital mechanics in general), it doesn't matter. The only thing that *does* matter are the accuracy of his observations and deductions.

If you want to put it that way, the way that I already heard numerous times,
the ultimate way that people trying to persuade someone into Moon landing when they run
out of any valid argument, tell me this then:

How fast do you travel using the rocket system trough the air (atmosphere) ?

How fast do you travel using the rocket system trough the water ?
(with the same speed of fuel combustion as above)

How fast do you travel using the same rocket system trough space ?

Tell me this in relative numbers.

There aren't any simple answers to any of those questions...the speed of a rocket through any medium that applies friction is going to depend on the shape of the rocket, the mass of the rocket, and the specific impulse of the engine (which isn't the same thing at all as the "'speed of fuel combustion"). Lacking any specific information, and in keeping with your desire for 'relative' numbers, here's the best I can do for you. All factors being equal:
How fast does a rocket travel through the air? Very fast.
How fast does a rocket travel through water? Not nearly as fast.
How fast does a rocket travel through space? Very, very fast.

Tell me how you KNOW that, not how you ASSUME that.

Or in other words, NOT how you WOULD LIKE IT TO BE, or how you IMAGINED it to be.

38 years of building and flying model rockets ranging from single-stage store-bought kits up through scratch-designed three stage birds that could loft a camera well above a mile in altitude. 20 years hand-loading my own solid rocket motors (though of late, sanity has set in, and I leave that to the pros these days). 5 years and counting building liquid-fuel amateur rockets.

30 years using (and occasionally building) astronomical telescopes.

As for the physics/math goodies, Bachelor's degrees in physics and computer science, minor in mathematics.

Let me guess.

You don't KNOW anything, right ?

Right ...

Pretty sweeping generalization and assumption there, friend. *shrug* On the other hand, my wife has told me the same thing, from time to time, so you might have a point.

EDIT:

As for the non-existance of the force pushing the planets:

How do you know that there is no force still pushing the planets ?

Can you explain then, which non-existent force is FORCING the planet's orbits
to be aligned with one another, like in the same "plate".
(my english is lacking here, you should know what I mean).

The planets are all in one "plane" (the ecliptic) because of the mechanics of planetary formation. The disk of matter from which they condensed formed parallel to the solar equator, and as they formed, most of them stayed more or less in the same plane.

posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 10:09 AM

Originally posted by sown261
I guess you have never seen the movie Capricorn One! It was necessary to launch a Rocket to give the appearance that the moon mission was real. The rocket never reached orbit, they would deploy the capsule over the ocean be picked up by either Submarine or Aircraft Carrier.

Actually I did see Capricorn One.
Every last thing on that mission was intended to be a real manned mission and would have been. The fake mission was only faked to continue funding on a shortened political timeline.
It was a Mars mission, not a Moon mission.
The rocket did reach orbit, it reached Mars and did the whole fake mission perfectly, just burned up on reentry to Earth.

posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 10:12 AM

Originally posted by steveknows
Actually astronauts do get a little taller because all the weight is taken off their joints and vertebrae so they expand but go back to normal once back on the the ground.

Yeah, I should've remembered that. I doubt it's enough to increase one's stride length, though, especially when encumbered by a space suit and possibly debilitated by the other effects of zero-g. Not so much that LROC could measure it.

posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 10:22 AM

.... a lot of talk with no arguments ...

There aren't any simple answers to any of those questions...the speed of a rocket through any medium that applies friction is going to depend on the shape of the rocket, the mass of the rocket, and the specific impulse of the engine (which isn't the same thing at all as the "'speed of fuel combustion"). Lacking any specific information, and in keeping with your desire for 'relative' numbers, here's the best I can do for you. All factors being equal:
How fast does a rocket travel through the air? Very fast.
How fast does a rocket travel through water? Not nearly as fast.
How fast does a rocket travel through space? Very, very fast.

Trying to look smart, eh ?

quote from wiki:
"Specific impulse (usually abbreviated Isp) is a way to describe the efficiency of rocket and jet engines. It represents the derivative of the impulse with respect to amount of propellant used, i.e., the thrust divided by the amount of propellant used per unit time."

propellant used per unit time = speed of fuel combustion

Why do you have to use these low tricks in order to make yourself look smarter ?
Will that really make your non-arguments worth more ?

And what is the talk about the "lack of specific information" ?
You don't presume that in all three cases all parameters are THE SAME ?
How come when you are so smart as you claim to be ?

OR !

You know why you wrote that.

Because you know that a (good) aerodynamic rocket will go faster trough water than trough air
while a bad aerodynamic rocket will go faster trough air than trough water
while, in both cases, they will go much MUCH faster than trough space.

38 years of building and flying model rockets ranging from single-stage store-bought kits up through scratch-designed three stage birds that could loft a camera well above a mile in altitude. 20 years hand-loading my own solid rocket motors (though of late, sanity has set in, and I leave that to the pros these days). 5 years and counting building liquid-fuel amateur rockets.

30 years using (and occasionally building) astronomical telescopes.

As for the physics/math goodies, Bachelor's degrees in physics and computer science, minor in mathematics.

Yes, you are a REAL scientist, like those "scientists" from nasa.

The planets are all in one "plane" (the ecliptic) because of the mechanics of planetary formation. The disk of matter from which they condensed formed parallel to the solar equator, and as they formed, most of them stayed more or less in the same plane.

And JUST COINCIDENTALLY "formed parallel to the solar equator" ?!?!

And JUST COINCIDENTALLY all the planets behave the same
regarding position, spinning, movement, orbits, ......., ...... ...... ?

HEY, you have convinced me, I don't know about the others.

posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 10:56 AM

Originally posted by steveknows

Originally posted by GrassyKnoll

Originally posted by theXammux
Assuming someone was willing to spend millions of dollars just to end this silly debate...

If this debate is silly to you; why do you bother replying?

The ONUS is on NASA to prove astronauts walked the surface of the earth.

Why on earth is it silly to question suspicious explanations?

NASA did prove it in 1969. It's up to the tools who ignore the information to prove otherwise. And I mean real proof not hearsay or some stupid website with no solid foundation for the claims that it didn't happen.
edit on 9-9-2011 by steveknows because: (no reason given)

Would you care to post NASA's 1969 proof of a moon landing on this thread?

I would love to see which moon landing videos constitute proof for you.

posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 11:05 AM

Originally posted by Valar God

Originally posted by steveknows

Originally posted by Valar God

Originally posted by steveknows

Originally posted by Valar God
...

You don't burn fuel all the way to anywhere in space including the moon. You burn fuel to push off and depending on how far you have to go and where you're are going is how long you have to push off for. Once you're on your way to your desired velocity you cann the rockets or else you'll end up going faster than you want and overshoot your target or burn up more fuel than you wanted in order slow down. So you only need enough fuel to start, slow down, stop start again and then slow down and stop or slow down and re enter.

And you know that how ?

From the Moon missions ?

LOL.

Are we going in circle here ?

No because I've loved science since I was a kid. Go play a game of air hockey and observe. Mind you the table isn't in a vacuum, but observation can be a powerful thing.

Hey man, excellent explanation.

I am very glad for you that you loved science when you were a kid.

Why don't YOU go play a game of hockey considering that you got no explanation ?

(OMG, these people who BELIEVE in Moon landing are all the same.)

I did just explain it. The fact that you don't get it makes me understand why you're part of the hoax group. It must be easier for you to believe in a hoax than to figure out what something means or to put much thought into anything. I guess the concept of orbit or lack of friction in regards to thrust or velocity is just too much for you to think about. I do apologise for using the air hocky analogy and had I known you couldn't make the connection I would have tried for something more simple to use as an analogy. If I could have thought of something more simple that is.
edit on 9-9-2011 by steveknows because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 11:06 AM

Originally posted by Valar God

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Valar God

I actually have to point you to it? You make no effort on your own yet make those claims???
Start here:

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

I am impressed that you know how to google something
and that you know about wikipedia.

The thing you are lacking is RELEVANCE !

So you're not going to even try? You give up that easy? You want relevance? There's plenty of it there. You'd see it if you would look. So...

posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 11:11 AM

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli

Originally posted by steveknows
Actually astronauts do get a little taller because all the weight is taken off their joints and vertebrae so they expand but go back to normal once back on the the ground.

Yeah, I should've remembered that. I doubt it's enough to increase one's stride length, though, especially when encumbered by a space suit and possibly debilitated by the other effects of zero-g. Not so much that LROC could measure it.

lol. No it wouldn't make any difference. I think they end up about a centimeter taller.

posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 11:16 AM

Originally posted by rocket88

You demand it. NASA offers it.

www.nasa.gov...

Yes thank you for posting the same gray blobs and lines. If you had bothered to follow this thread you would have noticed that the same pictures you provided have been posted 20 times already.

Now that we're on the topic of those pictures; please explain why those pictures constitute proof?

Have you tried to zoom the images on a picture viewer for a better view of the footpath and lunar module?

If you care to discuss the details of the photos I would be more than happy. But all the believers seem to post their links and photos and say: "Aha! Proof!" "give-up hoaxers"!...no debate, no discussion no objectivity...then they walk away from the thread.

All I see are grey pixels...if that is proof for you and a lot of other people? I am not at all surprised how easily the US government gets away with lying to their people.

posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 11:18 AM

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by sown261
I guess you have never seen the movie Capricorn One! It was necessary to launch a Rocket to give the appearance that the moon mission was real. The rocket never reached orbit, they would deploy the capsule over the ocean be picked up by either Submarine or Aircraft Carrier.

Actually I did see Capricorn One.
Every last thing on that mission was intended to be a real manned mission and would have been. The fake mission was only faked to continue funding on a shortened political timeline.
It was a Mars mission, not a Moon mission.
The rocket did reach orbit, it reached Mars and did the whole fake mission perfectly, just burned up on reentry to Earth.

Yes it was Mars
edit on 9-9-2011 by steveknows because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 11:34 AM

Originally posted by Valar God

.... a lot of talk with no arguments ...

There aren't any simple answers to any of those questions...the speed of a rocket through any medium that applies friction is going to depend on the shape of the rocket, the mass of the rocket, and the specific impulse of the engine (which isn't the same thing at all as the "'speed of fuel combustion"). Lacking any specific information, and in keeping with your desire for 'relative' numbers, here's the best I can do for you. All factors being equal:
How fast does a rocket travel through the air? Very fast.
How fast does a rocket travel through water? Not nearly as fast.
How fast does a rocket travel through space? Very, very fast.

Trying to look smart, eh ?

quote from wiki:
"Specific impulse (usually abbreviated Isp) is a way to describe the efficiency of rocket and jet engines. It represents the derivative of the impulse with respect to amount of propellant used, i.e., the thrust divided by the amount of propellant used per unit time."

propellant used per unit time = speed of fuel combustion

Why do you have to use these low tricks in order to make yourself look smarter ?
Will that really make your non-arguments worth more ?

And what is the talk about the "lack of specific information" ?
You don't presume that in all three cases all parameters are THE SAME ?
How come when you are so smart as you claim to be ?

OR !

You know why you wrote that.

"Lack of specific information" means just what it says. If you give me the specific impulse of a given rocket motor, the mass of the rocket, and the coefficient of drag for that rocket, I can do a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation and tell you how fast it will travel through whatever medium is associated with that given value of drag. If all you give me is "Assume they're the same" (which, you might note, I did assume in my post), all I can tell you is that (essentially) the denser the medium, the slower the rocket...thus, it will be fast in air, and slower in water. I suppose you could regard vacuum (space) and a brick wall as the two extreme ends of that curve, with space allowing the highest speed, and a solid wall generating a probable zero speed. Joking aside, if you want a numerical answer, I need numerical input.

Because you know that a (good) aerodynamic rocket will go faster trough water than trough air
while a bad aerodynamic rocket will go faster trough air than trough water
while, in both cases, they will go much MUCH faster than trough space.

Okay...at this point, I'm throwing the big, red "BULLEXCREMENT!" flag and sounding the troll alarm unless you can show me some fairly conclusive proof for this assertion.

38 years of building and flying model rockets ranging from single-stage store-bought kits up through scratch-designed three stage birds that could loft a camera well above a mile in altitude. 20 years hand-loading my own solid rocket motors (though of late, sanity has set in, and I leave that to the pros these days). 5 years and counting building liquid-fuel amateur rockets.

30 years using (and occasionally building) astronomical telescopes.

As for the physics/math goodies, Bachelor's degrees in physics and computer science, minor in mathematics.

Yes, you are a REAL scientist, like those "scientists" from nasa.

Nope...I'm a computer jockey. Rockets and astronomy are hobbies...but you asked how I knew this stuff, so I told you.

And JUST COINCIDENTALLY "formed parallel to the solar equator" ?!?!

And JUST COINCIDENTALLY all the planets behave the same
regarding position, spinning, movement, orbits, ......., ...... ...... ?

HEY, you have convinced me, I don't know about the others.

No coincidence that the planetary disk formed at the solar equator...you might consider grabbing an astronomy textbook, or looking online for theories of planetary formation. Given that the pre-planetary nebula is a spinning object, it's going to assume a disk shape at right angles to the axis of spin. Since the planets coalesce out of this spinning nebular cloud, they're all in the same plane, and should all be orbiting in the same direction, unless (and here comes Newton's First Law again) something acted on them to change their orbit. Most of the data you need to study this can be found on wikipedia...the rest can be found on astronomy websites, and little to none of it is graduate level stuff.

To be honest, I don't care whether you come to believe we ever made it to the Moon. I don't make any money off your belief, or lack of, and I don't lose sleep over it...but I would prefer that you base your belief on solid science and engineering

new topics

top topics

15