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.

 

Why isn't Orion landing on the moon

page: 3
15
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2022 @ 12:41 AM
link   
mashable.com...
Just found this article on our topic here.


On Earth, aircraft rely on GPS, the U.S. government-run satellite navigation system, to provide precise landing coordinates as planes and other craft move through the sky. But there's no such satellite network encircling the moon.




It also made mention about the fact that there is no atmosphere on the moon.


When spacecraft land on Earth, they use the atmosphere to slow down, as we saw when Space Shuttles and Apollo capsules returned. But the moon's atmosphere is extremely thin, comparable to the far outskirts of Earth's atmosphere, where the International Space Station orbits. This means that slowing down is dependent on firing out bounties of propellent.

edit on 1-12-2022 by AOx6179 because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-12-2022 by AOx6179 because: Added content



posted on Dec, 2 2022 @ 08:58 AM
link   



Why aren't they landing on the moon? I'm asking because they've already done it, right? Over 50 years ago they were able to navigate a lunar surface landing. It should be easy peezy at this point, again especially since they've been able to do it before.



The first Apollo mission to the moon didn't land either. Engineering is done in incremental steps with testing as you go. eg. When an auto maker comes out with a new model they don't just build the whole thing and take it for a drive. They design/build/test the major components separately and work out the issues before combining them so the flaws don't compound.

edit on 2-12-2022 by captainpudding because: typo



posted on Dec, 2 2022 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: BernnieJGato

Late to the party, so some may have already asked and it may have been answered, but why is there no shadow of Earth on the moon in this pic?



posted on Dec, 2 2022 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

Because in this instance the Earth isn't between the sun and moon



posted on Dec, 2 2022 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

Because in this instance the Earth isn't between the sun and moon


If the sun's rays were hitting the moon first, then would not the shadow be on the other side of the moon?



posted on Dec, 2 2022 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn




Late to the party, so some may have already asked and it may have been answered, but why is there no shadow of Earth on the moon in this pic?


it has to do with rotation and orbit, just like the dark side of the moon isn't really dark.

maybe this will explain it better than me.


Like all worlds orbiting a sun, Earth casts a shadow. It’s easy to see in the sky, just after sunset and before sunrise. In fact, you’ve probably already seen Earth’s shadow, many times, as day changes to night.



Earth’s shadow: When can you see it?



posted on Dec, 2 2022 @ 10:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

Because in this instance the Earth isn't between the sun and moon


If the sun's rays were hitting the moon first, then would not the shadow be on the other side of the moon?


You're thinking in two dimensions, when this picture was taken, the moon and the earth weren't lined up in a way that the earth would cast a shadow on the moon. Just think any time of day when there isn't a lunar eclipse, that's one of those days



posted on Dec, 2 2022 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

As other people have said, it's the 3D aspect of the image you're missing. I've put the correct date into Celestia (but not the correct time) and this is how it looks from the side:



and this is how it looks by just changing the viewing angle:



(NB: the original image is 'upside down' - north is at the bottom).
edit on 2/12/2022 by OneBigMonkeyToo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2022 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

As other people have said, it's the 3D aspect of the image you're missing. I've put the correct date into Celestia (but not the correct time) and this is how it looks from the side:



and this is how it looks by just changing the viewing angle:



(NB: the original image is 'upside down' - north is at the bottom).


Thanks.

I see it now.



posted on Dec, 2 2022 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Ah, I see... So because Columbus in a SHIP had problems, hundreds of years ago, we can't land anything on the Moon unless it's manned.

So how did the Russians land two Lunokhods on the Moon fifty years ago? They were unmanned. They did the landing part. FIFTY YEARS ago.
Yet you're suggesting that we can't make something then TAKE OFF (which is a darn sight easier than landing) from the Moon today? With modern technology?

I can guarantee that they will NEVER land humans on the Moon, black, female or otherwise, in your lifetime. There will be excuse after excuse, and the Artemis joke of a 'mission' will say they 'can't go to the Moon' because of these excuses.



posted on Dec, 2 2022 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: AOx6179

You can go to where we store the moon rocks we collected when we were on the moon (there is footage of the astronauts collecting them).
a reply to: Alien Abduct

Ok, question about the rocks. They just released info about the rocks. Just this year I believe. Why did they wait 50+ years to start examining these rocks?


They deliberately saved some to be examined in the future as technology progressed. Some rocks were analyzed almost immediately.



posted on Dec, 2 2022 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: AOx6179
This is a shakedown mission to test the Orion capsule.

The new lander(s) have yet to be built, nor has the lunar space station, Gateway

The ultimate goal is to start a permanent presence on the moon when we ultimately land again. Unfortunately that is likely at least 3 years away, probably longer.
edit on 2-12-2022 by jrod because: G



posted on Dec, 2 2022 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: JohnThomas2

They can't land on the moon, because the capsule isn't designed to. It never was, and never will be. It's designed to have a lunar lander piggyback, like Apollo did, and that will land on the moon. The lander doesn't currently exist, and isn't with the capsule. They won't actually land on the moon until at least the third mission, which won't be until 2025 at the earliest. Artemis II will take a crew on a similar flight as this mission in 2024.



posted on Dec, 2 2022 @ 03:06 PM
link   
The photos of the surface of the Moon that Artemis has sent back have been atrocious. Washed out, impossible to see features on the lunar surface, ten times worse than anything that Apollo sent back. It's so obviously fake, and they aren't even trying any more.



posted on Dec, 2 2022 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Yeah, that makes abundant sense. Spend hundreds of millions on the first mission but don't bother including a lander, because it makes much more sense to send ANOTHER mission with a land in it instead, at even more cost. a reply to: captainpudding



posted on Dec, 2 2022 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: JohnThomas2

The point of the program isn’t one mission. It’s to eventually establish a permanent presence on the moon. This is a test mission. You don’t go from “never flown” to doing the most complex things possible in any test program. You make sure you can walk before you run. No program in history, either space based or earth based has gone straight to the most complex thing it was designed for on its first attempt.



posted on Dec, 2 2022 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: JohnThomas2

Just like Apollo 8 didn't. And Apollo 10 took a lander but didn't land it.



posted on Dec, 2 2022 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: JohnThomas2

As has been explained ad nauseam: sending photos back costs bandwidth. They have other things to do with that bandwidth. There will be higher resolution images when the capsule returns, you can then complain about those on the basis of some arbitrary standard that you have decided to apply.

While in lunar orbit Apollo flew much closer to the surface, used extremely good cameras, and were in actual orbit for much longer, choosing what they were taking photos of, not just passing by briefly as Artemis has.

Artemis has not gone there to take photographs to make you happy, it has not even gone there to take lunar photographs. There are far more detailed images taken by probes specifically designed for that purpose. You not liking the photos they have taken doesn't mean they didn't take them.



posted on Dec, 2 2022 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: JohnThomas2

Not exactly the point being made. The point was that you don’t cram everything at once when you have no idea of the outcome. Columbus was Italian, only Spain rolled the dice to fund his crazy idea of sailing west to get to the far east. The idea being to avoid the time, expenses, limitations and dangers of the Silk Road in acquiring goods from the far east.

And in all his trips, he never saw anyone like what Marco Polo described. Nor any of the cloth and spices, but there was gold to be found and people to exploit.



posted on Dec, 5 2022 @ 06:32 AM
link   
a reply to: JohnThomas2

I'm sorry reality doesn't conform to your beliefs



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join