'First step on the moon' - take one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDs23G2zQMo
'First step on the moon' - take two
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9XBAxdKVRE
Printable View
'First step on the moon' - take one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDs23G2zQMo
'First step on the moon' - take two
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9XBAxdKVRE
Why couldn't they have traveled that distance?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Mallory
From what I could gather the rocket traveled anywhere from 24,000mph to 2,200 mph (they were gliding to the moon, it wasn't a constant propulsion) at a decelerating rate until it approached the moon's orbit. If you avg out the speed.. (24000+2200 /2) to 13,100 mph that would make the flight 1.8 hours (24,000/13,100).
That falls in line with NASAs report. Do you have conflicting information about the speed of the rocket? We could plug those numbers in and see what we get.
How convenient.Quote:
Originally Posted by AJ Camacho
But did NASA really have the technology to remote control a Camara 238857 miles away and through the earths atmosphere in 1969?Quote:
Originally Posted by AJ Camacho
Could they even remote control camaras on the other side of the Earth in 1969?
Eddie cheers for the mid-flight footage. Never seen that one before.
Not really, I used your Van Allen belt measurements. The one's I found were different but the differences weren't enough to complain. Like I said, I didn't have any preconceived answers to the points you guys have made. All I did was research the claims by themselves and this is the information I'm finding. I'm literally learning about this stuff as I am looking it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Mallory
Again, if you don't want to believe NASA about their speeds then why even bother to believe them about the Van Allen Belt? They are the authority for space travel because they did it.. if you remove them as a valid source of information then there is no real discussion about any of this stuff... unless you can find Russian or Chinese reports validating some aspects of information but disavowing others.
I really don't have any dogs in the race and sort of don't care either way. If it helps, just consider my posts as a devil's advocate or a "what NASA would say" post. I've tried to just post raw information without any judgement as I have no plans on making this a personal discussion.
I don't know about 1969 but apparently they did for later flights. I guess the further debate on the issue is on whether or not people are editing later lander footage out of context into these conspiracy vids or if NASA just pulled a major moronic boner?Quote:
Originally Posted by James III
So a flight to the moon only takes 10 hours ?Quote:
Originally Posted by AJ Camacho
Wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Mallory
Manned missions do it quicker: 3 days, 3 hours, 49 minutes
Next up, the Apollo missions in comparison were fairly quick to reach the Moon. The Apollo 11 astronauts were launched atop a huge Saturn V multi-stage rocket on July 16th 1969 from Kennedy Space Centre and sent quickly on their way. They reached lunar orbit after only three days in space on July 19th 1969.
From Universetoday.com
I don't know.. by the time they were out of the earth's orbit they had decelerated to 2,200 mph and would then accelerate again as they approached the moon's gravitational field. Honestly, that math is a bit over my head to account for a solid time based on an object that was changing speeds to drastically.
The 13,100 mph avg is only an effective form of measurement for the distance covered while exiting the earth gravitational field.