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: 4
15
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2022 @ 07:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: JohnThomas2
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



So why didn't Apollo 8 land on the Moon?

en.wikipedia.org...

(or, indeed, Apollo 10)



posted on Dec, 16 2022 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
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.


LOL. They have returned their 'capsule' (which they claim, like all the fake Apollo capsules, returned to Earth with its FLAT face forwards, somehow magically not spinning until the most aerodynamic part (the other, pointed end!) was facing forwards... Where are all the high resolution videos now? Aah... Artemis hasn't gone there "to make me happy". LOL. So in other words - high resolution video and photos (which are absolutely VITAL to further space missions) are actually just "to make me happy". That sure showed me!



posted on Dec, 16 2022 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: JohnThomas2
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



So why didn't Apollo 8 land on the Moon?

en.wikipedia.org...

(or, indeed, Apollo 10)


Thanks for proving my point. Remember those MANNED Apollo missions that allegedly landed on the Moon? Time after time? Over FIFTY years ago? Yet somehow it apparently makes sense to send a rocket around the Moon with NO LANDER on it, so all that money was wasted. And with no LIVE, 4K cameras on it either. You're telling me that NASA didn't have the ability to build a load of robotic landers,which would right now be roaming around the Moon and sending back hi res video for hundreds of millions of people to watch? It's like building the world's first boat that can sail across the Atlantic, 2,000 years ago, and sending NOBODY on it. Laughable. It's so obviously fake that they don't even bother trying nowadays.



posted on Dec, 16 2022 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: JohnThomas2

Apollo 8 didn't fly with a lander. It was supposed to, but the lander wasn't ready to fly, so only the Command Module went to the moon. As for the cameras, there are HD cameras on the capsule and Service Module. They aren't broadcasting back to earth from space, but they're there. Engineers will use those pictures to look at the capsule at various points of its mission to look for anything out of the ordinary. There's a huge difference between not having cameras, and not broadcasting data from those cameras.



posted on Dec, 16 2022 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: JohnThomas2

And again, the process is testing it but by bit. Apollo 11 landed on the moon thanks to the testing undertaken in the missions that preceswd it. This is the same process.

If you were in charge you could organise it however you wanted, but you're not so suck it up.



posted on Dec, 16 2022 @ 11:04 PM
link   
a reply to: JohnThomas2

Flat face forward ?? What are you babbling about .......

Artemis used what is called a skip re entry where capsule bounces or skips off atmosphere before doing landing re entry

scitechdaily.com...#:~:text=When%20the%20Lockheed%20Martin-built%2 0Orion%20spacecraft%20returns%20to,precise%20landing%20location%20for%20safer%20crew%20recovery%20efforts.

Space capsules are designed with a certain amount of lift which allows them to control their reentry

Russia (Soviets) practiced skip reentry , sometimes called a double dip, for their ZOND probes in the 1960's Zond was being tested as a manned spacecraft to transport 2 cosmonauts on lunar flyby . Soviets had problems with ZOND spacecraft , basically a stripped down SOYUZ , and their Proton heavy lift booster Were not able to get it work before Apollo missions did lunar orbital and landing missions made it redundant
edit on 16-12-2022 by firerescue because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2022 @ 02:20 AM
link   
a reply to: JohnThomas2

High res imagery are not vital to missions, data sent by the spacecraft is. Sending that data back is more important than providing people who will refuse to accept them as real anyway with pretty pictures. That's what they've done: used the available bandwidth for more important things.

The technology to send thimgs to the lunar surface and send back images exists, it's already happened. People got bored of it and thought money could be spent elsewhere. When they do it again the same thing will happen.

You sulking about not having nice photos to look at really doesn't upset NASA one little bit. The high res images will be published, but I can guarantee they aren't sweating over you demanding them, just like I can guarantee that you'll still complain about them when they do.




top topics



 
15
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join