abonnementen ibood.com bol.com Gearbest
  zaterdag 11 maart 2017 @ 20:29:37 #151
279682 theguyver
Sidekick van A tuin-hek!
pi_169440333
registreer om deze reclame te verbergen
quote:
0s.gif Op vrijdag 10 maart 2017 18:41 schreef Lavenderr het volgende:

Video: de eerste kolonies rond een andere ster

Op dit moment is het al grensverleggend om kolonies op Mars te stichten. Deze video gaat over een nog veel gedurfder plan: de mensheid en ander aards leven verspreiden tot ver buiten het Zonnestelsel. Het plan begint met een kolonieschip van 2 kilometer lang dat met tien procent van de lichtsnelheid beweegt.

http://www.visionair.nl/w(...)ond-een-andere-ster/

Fascinerend idee.
Thnx ik houd wel van dat soort docu's!

Doet me beetje denken aan.
Gandhi shot first!!!
pi_169455342
quote:
0s.gif Op zaterdag 11 maart 2017 18:31 schreef ATuin-hek het volgende:

[..]

Ik weet niet waar je dit vandaan hebt, maar dit alles valt prima uit te rekenen. Je kan bijvoorbeeld uitrekenen bij welke phase angle je moet vertrekken om bij de maan (of een planeet) uit te komen.

[..]

De raket duwt recht van onderen. Waarom zou het verbindende frame dan breken?

[..]

There is, acutally. Als je goed kijkt zie je dat het allemaal wat gladder/schoner was.

[..]

Uit een gasfles.

[..]

Dat het in dat zonlicht zat betekend niet automatisch dat het instantaan aan die temperatuur zat. De LM had ook weer zijn eigen temperature control.

[..]

Dat klopt, de vlam met de gebruikte brandstof is vrijwel kleurloos.
Hm,

There are two types!

1. Satellites orbiting Earth. They are easy to put in orbits! Just apply a force and send them into orbits from ground. They cannot ever land on Earth ground again. Arianespace does it all the time. Via Airbus NV I am a shareholder. We meet 12 April 2017 at Okura Hotel, Amsterdam, Holland, to discuss it.

2. Spacecrafts going to the Moon, Mars or asteroids. They are all fake! Propaganda. Just to impress stupid people. They cannot orbit anything. They have to start from Earth/LEO/EPO, stop and restart at target (Moon, Mars, asteroid) and return and stop back on Earth and it is not possible. You cannot carry the fuel (energy) with you to do it and ... you are lost anyway. You don't know where you are in 3D space during the trip/trajectory.

To travel in space (like Apollo 11) you have to stop at the target (Moon) and then restart there to continue the trip. But you cannot carry the fuel with you for it. You get too heavy. And you must be able to predict the trajectory of your trip ... but you cannot. The n-body problem. And you cannot re-enter and land on Earth again. You are returning too fast and cannot identify the location, where to start the dip into the atmosphere. I have proven it all at my website, i.e. human space travel is a hoax. Only people suffering from cognitive dissonance cannot accept it. It is sad

The spacecraft arrived in high velocity lunar orbit and then escaped (stopped going round in orbit) from high speed lunar orbit and for that you must apply great (rocket) forces on the spacecraft at the right time, location, duration, amplitude and direction and for that you need fuel and a good steering and navigation system.

Which you didn't have.

You seem to be in some sort of denial.

I asked NASA for calculations and Apollo 11 fuel use, but got no reply.

The 1969 Apollo 11 is a good example why human space travel is not possible. Apollo 11 was 100% science fiction or a Hollywood show.

[ Bericht 2% gewijzigd door Lavenderr op 12-03-2017 14:25:26 ]
  zondag 12 maart 2017 @ 10:35:55 #153
47122 ATuin-hek
theguyver's sidekick!
pi_169455473
quote:
0s.gif Op zondag 12 maart 2017 10:23 schreef Heiwa het volgende:

[..]

2. Spacecrafts going to the Moon, Mars or asteroids. They are all fake! Propaganda. Just to impress stupid people. They cannot orbit anything. They have to start from Earth/LEO/EPO, stop and restart at target (Moon, Mars, asteroid) and return and stop back on Earth and it is not possible. You cannot carry the fuel (energy) with you to do it and ... you are lost anyway. You don't know where you are in 3D space during the trip/trajectory.
What gives you that idea? Dat kan allemaal prima.
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
Onikaan ni ov dovah
pi_169456037
registreer om deze reclame te verbergen
quote:
0s.gif Op zaterdag 11 maart 2017 17:52 schreef CynicusRomanticusRob het volgende:

[..]

Ojawel
Nee, dat kun je niet. Vandaar dat je om de hete brij heen draait.
pi_169456133
quote:
0s.gif Op zondag 12 maart 2017 10:23 schreef Heiwa het volgende:
The 1969 Apollo 11 is a good example why human space travel is not possible. .htm . Apollo 11 was 100% science fiction or a Hollywood show.
Geweldig, die vent denkt, net as flat earther Eric Dubay, dat kernbommen niet bestaan :')

En "het is 100% dit of toch iets anders"...

Waar is dan die 100% op gebaseerd?

[ Bericht 7% gewijzigd door ChrisCarter op 12-03-2017 14:43:04 ]
pi_169456650
quote:
0s.gif Op zondag 12 maart 2017 11:26 schreef Wantie het volgende:

[..]

Geweldig, die vent denkt, net as flat earther Eric Dubay, dat kernbommen niet bestaan :')

En "het is 100% dit of toch iets anders"...

Waar is dan die 100% op gebaseerd?
Hm, sorry. I meant ' It is 100% faked and done in a hollywood studio.


Space shuttle and SpaceX are fake too, I explain at my website.

Atomic weapons are a joke!

Manne Siegbahn was Swedish Nobel prize winner physics 1924 and created his own laboratory at Stockholm. Manne was a good friend of my grandfather, their children knew each other and I was a friend of one grandson J living at Manne's house say 1960-64.

As I was and am very intelligent, I considered physics as a career 1964 and mentioned it to Manne. Career? Low paid teacher jobs, few jobs in industry according Manne. Only idiots design nuclear weapons and rockets to go into space in Sweden! Look at the physicists at the Royal Institute of Technology, Sthlm, doing that! All eggheads! Do something else, Manne indicated to me.

Later I found out that Manne had been asked by the government to build a Swedish a-bomb 1945 and agreed ... subject to all being public. So Manne didn't get the job as it was just nonsense propaganda based on secret lies.
He had his own laboratory and was his own boss but got $1M from Rockefeller to shut up. Niels Bohr was another friend of the family and had assisted building the fake US bomb in New Mexico, 1943/5.

Poor Niels was considered a war criminal by some of my family. Imagine assisting building a thing that in a FLASH that lasts nano-seconds kills 10 000's of onnocent, civilian human beings. And Niels could never explain how the famous FLASH was triggered! Suddenly compressing metal to double density? If he had suggested it 1945/6 he would have been considered a fool! No, Niels was just part of the hoax.

He learnt to ski in New Mexico, it was about all.
And in the end he could never describe what a uranium atom was and what happened when it fissioned (disovered by Otto Hahn 1938).
Or why it would produce a mushroom cloud.

Fission is just an uranium metal atom splitting in two parts releasing neutrons and pure energy. Fission must be moderated to do fission. Without moderation the metal atoms just melt and the fission stops.
That a big block of of pure metal uranium can fission and create a FLASH and a mushroom cloud are just stupid propaganda! Invented by FDR and Stalin 1942/5. Both sick persons.

But plenty sick people carry on the lies and the propaganda today. It is big biz.

By chance I met 1999 a person that had built Stalin's a-bombs 1946-1958 using uranium produced by Wismut AG in the Soviet occupied zone of Germany. But Wismut AG didn't produce any uranium at all! It was just propaganda to enable Stalin to announce that his bomb produced a FLASH and mushroom cloud April 1949. It was just communist propaganda. Stalin (and USSR) never had any a-bombs!

Just check a sample of Wismut AG uranium ore today! It is pechblende that contains 0.02% uranium oxide. The 99.98% rest is just rocks of various kind, granite, quartz, stone. You couldn't build an a-bomb or anything with it.

[ Bericht 2% gewijzigd door ChrisCarter op 12-03-2017 14:43:42 ]
pi_169456758
registreer om deze reclame te verbergen
quote:
0s.gif Op zondag 12 maart 2017 10:35 schreef ATuin-hek het volgende:

[..]

What gives you that idea? Dat kan allemaal prima.
The speed after trans-Earth injection was maybe 2 640 m/s. But in what directions? Everything is unclear. The Moon was at this time still orbiting around the Earth at 1 023 m/s speed, so one way or another the CSM had to reduce that tangential speed in Moon orbit to 0. It would appear they got away from behind or aft side the Moon into the radial course towards Earth, while the Moon continued its circular, orbital course around Earth.
Who knows? Evidently the CSM had to reduce the orbital/circular speed orbiting Earth at Moon altitude to 0 and just get a radial speed away from Moon towards location X in space and location B in orbit around Earth.

It is quite complicated to navigate in space, when the islands or moons are moving all the time, and frankly speaking I do not understand how it is done in detail. Only 3D velocity records using Sun (fixed) as base and none are available.

I sail ships, and always know my location with radar, triangulation and sextant. Also, ships sail on a 2D water surface, space craft is in 3D space! How the Apollo space craft knew its location in 3D space is unknown! I also have lots of good woman, plenty of good food and plenty sex. How the astronauts did this is unknown.

The distance travelled during the 150 seconds trans-Earth injection - you have to get out of orbit around the Moon at exactly the right moment and location A and into a radial trajectory towards location X and then Earth overcoming Moon gravity force - was only 292 500 meter (assuming Moon didn't move but during 150 seconds the Moon evidently displaced 153 450 meters).


You probably were at same altitude 115 000 m during the maneuver, but who knows and cares? During this time the Moon and Apollo 11 moved 365 722 meter sideways which you had to consider one way or another. If you had directed your rocket engine in the wrong direction, you would not have been in orbit around the Moon but going astray or crashed. Note that Apollo 11 has no fuel reserves or redundancy. One error and you are finished!

The conversation of the asstroholes during the 6 minutes lunar orbit insertion, LOI, burn between 75 hrs 50 minutes and 75 hrs 56 minutes of the flight does not reveal anything dramatic ... except that they can see the Moon while braking backwards with the LM at the end of the spacecraft.

How was it possible? Were the three (crazy?) assholes aboard piloting the spacecraft manually with compass/chart pushing the brake button or pedal in the process looking out through the window like on an airplane? How did they know what was up/down/right/left and the directions of velocity and the force.

[ Bericht 2% gewijzigd door Lavenderr op 12-03-2017 14:29:03 ]
pi_169457134
There is no atmosphere on the Moon to diffuse the light. Everything directly exposed to the Sun should be bright white = light reflected. And everything not directly exposed to the Sun should be pitch black = no light. All photos should be bright white/pitch black. But they aren't.

I confirm there is no atmosphere on the Moon. So there is no diffusion of light there. I also confirm you cannot take pictures on the Moon with a modified Hasselblad camera. It stops functioning, when in the -150C cold shade and then being exposed to +150C sunshine. It cracks up.

the only light source on the Moon is the Sun! Neil and Buzz didn't bring any torches or candles with them.

If you make a giant room and suck all the air out, how do you shine a bright light into it? A candle? It will not burn in vacuum. And how do you operate your camera in it? Are you all right? If not, consult a doctor!

light in vaccum - how does it behave, if not in vacuum?

That the two Apollo 11 clowns were taking photos of themselves on the Moon is just a joke. The light was not correct. Their photos should be bitch black or bright white!
pi_169457879
quote:
0s.gif Op zondag 12 maart 2017 12:27 schreef Heiwa het volgende:
There is no atmosphere on the Moon to diffuse the light. Everything directly exposed to the Sun should be bright white = light reflected. And everything not directly exposed to the Sun should be pitch black = no light. All photos should be bright white/pitch black. But they aren't.
That is utter nonsense.

quote:
I confirm there is no atmosphere on the Moon. So there is no diffusion of light there. I also confirm you cannot take pictures on the Moon with a modified Hasselblad camera. It stops functioning, when in the -150C cold shade and then being exposed to +150C sunshine. It cracks up."

Can you provide the results of your experiment in a vaccuum chamber that proves both statements?

Nope, you can't

quote:
the only light source on the Moon is the Sun! Neil and Buzz didn't bring any torches or candles with them.
So your house is lit with torches and candles?
quote:
If you make a giant room and suck all the air out, how do you shine a bright light into it? A candle? It will not burn in vacuum. And how do you operate your camera in it? Are you all right? If not, consult a doctor!
Since when produces a candle a bright light?
How about a lamp?
You are aware that the early types of lamp were using a vacuum bulb?

quote:
light in vaccum - how does it behave, if not in vacuum?
So you don't know? Which proves again that your previous statement is bollocks.

quote:
That the two Apollo 11 clowns were taking photos of themselves on the Moon is just a joke. The light was not correct. Their photos should be bitch black or bright white!
Since you don't know how light behaves in a vacuum, you can't make that conclusion.
pi_169458246
quote:
0s.gif Op zondag 12 maart 2017 13:02 schreef Wantie het volgende:

[..]

That is utter nonsense.

[..]

Can you provide the results of your experiment in a vaccuum chamber that proves both statements?

Nope, you can't

[..]

So your house is lit with torches and candles?

[..]

Since when produces a candle a bright light?
How about a lamp?
You are aware that the early types of lamp were using a vacuum bulb?

[..]

So you don't know? Which proves again that your previous statement is bollocks.

[..]

Since you don't know how light behaves in a vacuum, you can't make that conclusion.
Hm, but there was no atmosphere to diffuse the light on the Moon. On the Moon there is only vacuum! Compare Earth where the light from the Sun must pass through 120 000 m of atmosphere full of atoms of all kind before hitting ground and sometimes with clouds in between. It is a big difference, i.e. the light conditions differ. IMO the Apollo 11 pictures were taken in atmosphere ... on Earth. But the photos show a gray surface. Gray surface of the Moon? Isn't it black? Or white? Or yellow? And Buzz used fill cards to light up the shady areas with Moon light 1969.


As far as I am concerned Buzz is an alcoholic that sees everything a bit hazy.

Which I explain at my popular website.

However, the main reason that Apollo 11 never visited the Moon is the fuel! It didn't have enough fuel to do the trip. Another reason is the re-entry and landing in Earth. It is impossible! satellites never return safety. They always burn up!
pi_169458299
quote:
0s.gif Op zondag 12 maart 2017 13:18 schreef Heiwa het volgende:

[..]

Hm, but there was no atmosphere to diffuse the light on the Moon. On the Moon there is only vacuum! Compare Earth where the light from the Sun must pass through 120 000 m of atmosphere full of atoms of all kind before hitting ground and sometimes with clouds in between. It is a big difference, i.e. the light conditions differ. IMO the Apollo 11 pictures were taken in atmosphere ... on Earth. But the photos show a gray surface. Gray surface of the Moon? Isn't it black? Or white? Or yellow? And Buzz used fill cards to light up the shady areas with Moon light 1969.

As far as I am concerned Buzz is an alcoholic that sees everything a bit hazy.

Which I explain at my popular website.

However, the main reason that Apollo 11 never visited the Moon is the fuel! It didn't have enough fuel to do the trip. Another reason is the re-entry and landing in Earth. It is impossible! satellites never return safety. They always burn up!
The problem with your argument is that you seem to believe that color and gray scales of surfaces are caused by diffusion in the atmosphere.
pi_169458317
quote:
0s.gif Op zondag 12 maart 2017 13:18 schreef Heiwa het volgende:
satellites never return safety. They always burn up!
They burn up on purpose.
pi_169458337
quote:
0s.gif Op zondag 12 maart 2017 13:20 schreef Wantie het volgende:

[..]

The problem with your argument is that you seem to believe that color and gray scales of surfaces are caused by diffusion in the atmosphere.
What is wrong with that? If the light from Sun is 100% reflected by anything on the Moon, it is WHITE. And if it is not reflected at all, it is BLACK. It happens in vacuum.

On Earth with atmosphere diffusing the light in all directions, there are all shades between WHITE and BLACK on photos taken, but not on the Moon, where there is vacuum.

Camera settings and film sensitivity doesn't matter at all. Color photo is a little different.

[ Bericht 5% gewijzigd door ChrisCarter op 12-03-2017 13:56:14 (Keep it clean) ]
pi_169458343
quote:
0s.gif Op zondag 12 maart 2017 13:18 schreef Heiwa het volgende:
the main reason that Apollo 11 never visited the Moon is the fuel! It didn't have enough fuel to do the trip.
So tell me, how much fuel was needed and how much had they brought with them.
pi_169458437
quote:
0s.gif Op zondag 12 maart 2017 13:22 schreef Heiwa het volgende:

[..]

What is wrong with that? If the light from Sun is 100% reflected by anything on the Moon, it is WHITE.
The moon is white?
Why would you believe that?

quote:
And if it is not reflected at all, it is BLACK. It happens in vacuum.
yet you can't prove that that happens in a vacuum.
lookup the worlds largest vacuum chamber. Its not black and white on the inside.

quote:
On Earth with atmosphere diffusing the light in all directions
Sure, but color is not determined by the direction of light, its determined by the frequency of light rays.

quote:
, Color photo is a little different.
nope, its the same principle

[ Bericht 9% gewijzigd door ChrisCarter op 12-03-2017 14:44:53 ]
pi_169458592
quote:
0s.gif Op zondag 12 maart 2017 13:22 schreef Wantie het volgende:

[..]

So tell me, how much fuel was needed and how much had they brought with them.
You tell me! I asked people at NAXA but got wrong numbers.
-spam-

Three stages launch vehicle Saturn V with Apollo 11 Command, Service and Lunar landing modules on top. The Apollo CSM had mass 43.8 tons incl. fuel to stop at the Moon and get back to Earth again.

The Saturn V rocket had mass >3 600 tons, most of it fuel. It seems NAXA needed >80 tons of fuel, etc, to get 1 ton of spacecraft with humans to the Moon 1969. It was VERY good. 2015 you need 50 tons of fuel to put 1 ton just in orbit around the Earth. The last use of a Saturn V rocket was the 14 May 1973 launch of Skylab.

Imagine a rocket that 1969 could lift >3 600 tons off the ground and miles into the sky and on to the Moon! Today the rockets are much smaller just putting much smaller satellites into orbit around Earth.

All records how Saturn V worked and all drawings what it looked like were then conveniently lost and some people wonder, if they ever existed ... or if Apollo V was just one empty Hollywood mock-up with some jet engines at bottom and trick film! Then came another strange launch vehicle - the Shuttle - that could not really land on Earth after visiting space! What you saw landing was just another light weight Hollywood mock-up.

2.2 Summary table of Apollo 11 Moon trip

Table starts when the Apollo 11 Control, Service Modules, CSM, and Lunar Module, LM, fitted on the full of fuel Saturn V rockets third stage are already on the way at ~7 500 m/s velocity in Earth orbit put there by the Saturn V rocket's first and second stages (Event #1) ... at about 190 000 m altitude.

The total mass of Apollo 11 CSM + third stage is then 135 699 or 338.692 kg. Nobody seems to know!!! The figure changes. This is the first anomaly of the description of the trip.

At that speed and altitude you go around Earth in about 90 minutes! If you go slower you will soon crash on Earth.

Then the third stage rocket is allegedly fired (Event #3) and the Apollo 11 modules are sent off at ~11 200 m/s velocity in direction Moon about 400 000 km away ... or where the Moon will be three days later. Plenty of fuel was used for getting off the Earth ...3 798 350 liters (or about 3 400+ tons) ... but all carried in separate rocket stages.

How they calculated the location of the Moon, and the time of Stage 3 burn is unknown.

[ Bericht 5% gewijzigd door Lavenderr op 12-03-2017 14:37:05 ]
  zondag 12 maart 2017 @ 13:43:22 #167
47122 ATuin-hek
theguyver's sidekick!
pi_169458830
quote:
0s.gif Op zondag 12 maart 2017 12:04 schreef Heiwa het volgende:

[..]


The speed after trans-Earth injection was maybe 2 640 m/s. But in what directions? Everything is unclear. The Moon was at this time still orbiting around the Earth at 1 023 m/s speed, so one way or another the CSM had to reduce that tangential speed in Moon orbit to 0. It would appear they got away from behind or aft side the Moon into the radial course towards Earth, while the Moon continued its circular, orbital course around Earth.
Who knows? Evidently the CSM had to reduce the orbital/circular speed orbiting Earth at Moon altitude to 0 and just get a radial speed away from Moon towards location X in space and location B in orbit around Earth.
No it's not. What they basically did was aim just ahead of the moon during TLI. They did this in such a way, that if they did nothing during the rest of the flight, the spacecraft would swing past the moon, be slowed down by it's gravitational attraction, and automatically return to earth. This is known as a free return trajectory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_return_trajectory

In order to get captured by the moons gravity, they would ignite the engine while flying by the moon to slow down enough to stay in orbit.

quote:
It is quite complicated to navigate in space, when the islands or moons are moving all the time, and frankly speaking I do not understand how it is done in detail. Only 3D velocity records using Sun (fixed) as base and none are available.

I sail ships, and always know my location with radar, triangulation and sextant. Also, ships sail on a 2D water surface, space craft is in 3D space! How the Apollo space craft knew its location in 3D space is unknown!
No it's not. Astronauts could actually use a sextant to navigate in space, using the stars, sun and fixed points on earth for references. They also had an inertial navigation system on board, and could navigate by means of multiple beamed radio waves from earth. That you don't understand how this is done, does not mean it is impossible to do.

quote:
The distance travelled during the 150 seconds trans-Earth injection - you have to get out of orbit around the Moon at exactly the right moment and location A and into a radial trajectory towards location X and then Earth overcoming Moon gravity force - was only 292 500 meter (assuming Moon didn't move but during 150 seconds the Moon evidently displaced 153 450 meters).


You probably were at same altitude 115 000 m during the maneuver, but who knows and cares? During this time the Moon and Apollo 11 moved 365 722 meter sideways which you had to consider one way or another. If you had directed your rocket engine in the wrong direction, you would not have been in orbit around the Moon but going astray or crashed. Note that Apollo 11 has no fuel reserves or redundancy. One error and you are finished!
Ever fired a weapon at a moving target, either in real life or in a video game? Same thing, aim ahead.

quote:
The conversation of the asstroholes during the 6 minutes lunar orbit insertion, LOI, burn between 75 hrs 50 minutes and 75 hrs 56 minutes of the flight does not reveal anything dramatic ... except that they can see the Moon while braking backwards with the LM at the end of the spacecraft.

How was it possible? Were the three (crazy?) assholes aboard piloting the spacecraft manually with compass/chart pushing the brake button or pedal in the process looking out through the window like on an airplane? How did they know what was up/down/right/left and the directions of velocity and the force.

They had a computer to do that for them.

[ Bericht 1% gewijzigd door Lavenderr op 12-03-2017 14:37:33 ]
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
Onikaan ni ov dovah
  zondag 12 maart 2017 @ 13:46:55 #168
47122 ATuin-hek
theguyver's sidekick!
pi_169458922
quote:
0s.gif Op zondag 12 maart 2017 13:22 schreef Heiwa het volgende:

[..]

What is wrong with that? If the light from Sun is 100% reflected by anything on the Moon, it is WHITE. And if it is not reflected at all, it is BLACK. It happens in vacuum.

On Earth with atmosphere diffusing the light in all directions, there are all shades between WHITE and BLACK on photos taken, but not on the Moon, where there is vacuum.

Camera settings and film sensitivity doesn't matter at all. Color photo is a little different.

You sound like a shill paid for supporting some cheap US astronuts fooling around 1969+. Why don't you grow up?
Why on earth would you think any substance has to reflect either 100% or 0% in a vacuum? :? The surface of the moon has variations in albedo, texture etc.
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
Onikaan ni ov dovah
pi_169459024
From my terrasse (with some good wine) here on Earth the visible Moon with the Sun shining on it is white - both at night and day. Only one color - white.

I have never seen a gray Moon.

What I see is white sun light being reflected by the Moon, which is then diffused by the atmosphere before reaching me. The Moon then appears generally white and round. If the Moon passes in front of the Sun, when I watch - an eclipse - the Moon will appear to be pitch black. And round.

If you take a picture of the Moon from Earth, you just record Sun light reflected from the Moon towards Earth. This Sun light is then diffused by the Earth atmosphere, e.g. if there is a cloud in the atmosphere, you cannot take a picture of the Moon at all.

If the camera is on the Moon taking pictures, there is no atmosphere diffusing the Sun light and no clouds stopping you taking pictures. The Sun light is pretty intense 14 days every four weeks. It heats up everything it contacts to 150C. It also lights it up. A lot. On the other hand, where light is not arriving - in the shade - there is no light of course = pitch black.

On Earth it is different. The light has to pass through the atmosphere and through, e.g. clouds. It affects picture taking by camera = photography. All photos allegedly taken on the Moon appear to be taken in an environment with atmosphere. And there is not atmosphere on the Moon. Regardless, it is not possible to fly to and land on the Moon. Rocket science does not allow it.

Sorry, you don't know anything about taking pictures on the Moon. You sound like Buzz Clown.

You really have to study to understand that travel between heavenly bodies is not possible. Only one-way launches of satellites to orbit Earth is possible.

[ Bericht 7% gewijzigd door Lavenderr op 12-03-2017 14:38:28 ]
  zondag 12 maart 2017 @ 13:52:57 #170
47122 ATuin-hek
theguyver's sidekick!
pi_169459083
quote:
0s.gif Op zondag 12 maart 2017 13:50 schreef Heiwa het volgende:
From my terrasse (with some good wine) here on Earth the visible Moon with the Sun shining on it is white - both at night and day. Only one color - white.

I have never seen a gray Moon.
...
Funny, when I look at the moon or take a picture I see something very different:

Multiple shades of grey there. How do you think that is?
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
Onikaan ni ov dovah
  Moderator zondag 12 maart 2017 @ 13:58:35 #171
450551 crew  ChrisCarter
Ti Ta Toverland
pi_169459224
Heiwa, no insinuations that people are paid or likewise. This is not a board where you can settle personal disputes. Let's keep it friendly guys.
pi_169459460
quote:
0s.gif Op zondag 12 maart 2017 13:52 schreef ATuin-hek het volgende:

[..]

Funny, when I look at the moon or take a picture I see something very different:
[ afbeelding ]

Multiple shades of grey there. How do you think that is?
That is because that light has been diffused by Earth's atmosphere.

Hm,

In order to take pictures on the Moon with a conventional camera, you must bring the camera to the Moon, take pictures with it, and then bring the camera back to Earth, open the camera, take out the film and develop it, etc. I think I explain quite well at my web site, why it is not possible.

Start to read about Rocket science, Fundamentals of spaceflight and Human (!) spaceflight and the courses I recommend at the Royal Institute of Technology, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden. Ask the teachers there for assistance. I provide the telephone numbers.


The teachers failed completely to establish a simple trajectory of a spacecraft leaving Earth to land on the Moon and to return again to Earth and land there.
One teacher said he had flown up to the ISS several times, done some EVAs there and then returned and landed on solid Earth ground again but asked for details ... nothing.
I have been told he is an actor just playing his role in the show.

What do you think?

Arianespace puts satellites in high speed high altitude orbits around Earth ... and that is all they can do. It is a one way trip. You cannot stop in or leave orbit and re-enter and land on Earth again.

The satellite has no brakes.

It is not possible for a satellite to leave orbit around Earth to fly off to another heavenly body like the Moon or a planet and land there. You don't know how to apply the extra forces required and you do not have the fuel required for it. You will get lost at once.

It is of course the famous n-body problem with no solution but experts say it is easy anyway.
And if they fly away in the wrong direction, they say it is easy just to stop and change course. But not how to do it. How do you turn 90 in space? Turn a wheel? Fire a rocket? NASA doesn't know how to turn a spacecraft 90 in space!

[ Bericht 2% gewijzigd door Lavenderr op 12-03-2017 14:39:06 ]
  Moderator zondag 12 maart 2017 @ 14:10:21 #173
450551 crew  ChrisCarter
Ti Ta Toverland
pi_169459487
Heiwa please also refrain from posting personal details like phone numbers etc.

This is against our policy.
  zondag 12 maart 2017 @ 14:22:56 #174
47122 ATuin-hek
theguyver's sidekick!
pi_169459774
quote:
1s.gif Op zondag 12 maart 2017 14:08 schreef Heiwa het volgende:

[..]

That is because that light has been diffused by Earth's atmosphere.
[

I have never seen a gray Moon.
...
[/quote]

And on your terrace this somehow does not happen?

quote:
Hm,

In order to take pictures on the Moon with a conventional camera, you must bring the camera to the Moon, take pictures with it, and then bring the camera back to Earth, open the camera, take out the film and develop it, etc. I think I explain quite well at my web site, why it is not possible.
And why wouldn't it be possible? The chemical reactions work fine in space, and the cassettes were radiation shielded.

quote:
Start to read about Rocket science, Fundamentals of spaceflight and Human (!) spaceflight and the courses I recommend at the Royal Institute of Technology, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden. Ask the teachers there for assistance. I provide the telephone numbers.


The teachers failed completely to establish a simple trajectory of a spacecraft leaving Earth to land on the Moon and to return again to Earth and land there.
One teacher said he had flown up to the ISS several times, done some EVAs there and then returned and landed on solid Earth ground again but asked for details ... nothing.
I have been told he is an actor just playing his role in the show.

What do you think?
I think you just didn't understand the explanation ;) Which is perfectly fine, as long as you remain open to information, and don't just dismiss it as fake because it's beyond your current level of comprehension.

quote:
Arianespace puts satellites in high speed high altitude orbits around Earth ... and that is all they can do. It is a one way trip. You cannot stop in or leave orbit and re-enter and land on Earth again.

The satellite has no brakes.
Sure they do. It's called a rocket engine. Once you start hitting the atmosphere, drag does the rest.

quote:
It is not possible for a satellite to leave orbit around Earth to fly off to another heavenly body like the Moon or a planet and land there. You don't know how to apply the extra forces required and you do not have the fuel required for it. You will get lost at once.
Sure you do. You can calculate the required phase angles, delta-v needed for the burn, how much fuel that will use etc etc. In a way it is easier in space, because once you're going, you just keep going.

quote:
It is of course the famous n-body problem with no solution but experts say it is easy anyway.
And if they fly away in the wrong direction, they say it is easy just to stop and change course. But not how to do it. How do you turn 90 in space? Turn a wheel? Fire a rocket? NASA doesn't know how to turn a spacecraft 90 in space!
Again, sure they do. I keep saying this, because there are answers to all these problems you see.

If you really want to learn more about all of this, I can recommend a very good space simulator video game, called Kerbal Space Program. It can teach you a lot about orbital mechanics, rocket staging, gravity turns, the rocket equation, navigation in the solar system etc etc.

[ Bericht 4% gewijzigd door Lavenderr op 12-03-2017 14:41:04 ]
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
Onikaan ni ov dovah
pi_169460236
quote:
0s.gif Op zondag 12 maart 2017 14:08 schreef Heiwa het volgende:
That is because that light has been diffused by Earth's atmosphere.

And again you contradict yourself.

So i leave you to Tuinhek as you clearly have no idea what you are talking about and just make stuff up as you go along
abonnementen ibood.com bol.com Gearbest
Forum Opties
Forumhop:
Hop naar:
(afkorting, bv 'KLB')