I've done much work for NASA and various Aerospace and Avionics and Missile/Interceptor and Navigation programs over the last 30 years.
I agree some people really are terribly gullible.
Depends on which ones you're referring to.
Actualy the more i read the more i can only aknowledge that people are terribly gullible.
And what would be the prove that a signal came back, i can tell you as well that i used a laser and in fact i used a radar, how could you then tell me the difference..??.
As for that image, I am unable to find it via google image search, and it appears to be a photoshopped version of this pic:
You realize that NASA cropped a ton of the pictures before releasing them to the media for aesthetic purposes?
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] Before 1995 it was not possible to see these pictures[/FONT]
Dude, lunar orbit insertion plans, specs, and physics are publicly available information. They work.
I am no physicist, but with all that info being public knowledge it is an absolute certainty that if they didn't they would have been debunked by now.
So you dont really know but are still trying to argue..?.
It is much much more easy to be gullible than critical because the former doesnt require anything else than ignorance and blind intellectual submission to the ones claimed competent...
Anyway since i m not deemed credible i ll find you other sources for the sake of the debate sanity..
I've done much work for NASA and various Aerospace and Avionics and Missile/Interceptor and Navigation programs over the last 30 years.
I agree some people really are terribly gullible.
Depends on which ones you're referring to.
I'm arguing from the point that if lunar insertion were physically impossible for apollo 11 that maybe, just maybe, someone would have mentioned that in the last half century.
Call me crazy.
This thread is an interesting example of what I mentioned earlier.
When conspiracy theorists are confronted with evidence that disproves their claims the response is not to renounce the conspiracy; they just double down.
As more and more people pile on he is just hardening his opinion.
Nasa experts are refusing to publicly debate with skeptical people, that tell a lot, what would they have to fear if the skeptics are just plain wrong..?.
Point him out that would be interesting.Somebody is trying to derail this thread...
Point him out that would be interesting.
That or you're a bit cold war ignorant yourself.
What was that about a nuclear Russia again?
Whatever their opinions gullible people are such because of ignorance.
As for your work during 30 years it surely gives you an idea of the difficulty given the complexity of the program and this without any CAD, tell us how much time would be required to design advanced missiles without all the gear that is available since 30 years, for the record the first electronic simulators were released during the second half of the 70s, i designed electronic circuitries and i just cant imagine how i would have done without thoses tools.
I have no doubt about your good faith, i m not saying that you are wrong since i wont use my sole opinion as reference, as said i ll check for sources before making any other statement about the decceleration issue and also the interaction between the space craft , earth and the moon, there is no analytical solution in a gravity system implying three corpses, iirc Henri Poincarré solved the problem by discovering that it was a quasi brownian system, read not predictible accurately and chaotic with no convergence.
I'm not going to argue with you. Even though every one of your arguments have been debunked many times over, you are so invested in yourself, you are going to believe whatever you want to believe.
That being said is this fake too:
I wait with bated breath.
Russians could intercept the communications but they had no mean to know if it was real or not, only a few years after the appollo program ended they finaly had the instrumentation to eventualy check if it was true or not but alas, the program opportunisticly ended early enough.
Also before going to the moon they were supposed to be orbiting a few time around the earth at a speed that is close to 10km/s.
When providing the necessary thrust to escape this orbit they will end at the liberation speed that is slightly more than the cited value, that s the speed at wich they will approach the moon but they have no brakes and they must pass close enough that the moon gravity (wich accelerated them further in the approach phase) can capture them but rememeber , too close and they will crash at its surface and if too far they ll end in the far space but then the necessary speed to sustain an orbit at a 40km altitude over the moon is only 1.5km/s , how was the speed reduced since they cant approach more than the maximum altitude of the moon mountains wich is iirc about 20km and more, i guess that it s the most obsured part that need no explanations as the majority of us dont master the basic equations of motion and gravity laws.
Whatever their opinions gullible people are such because of ignorance.
As for your work during 30 years it surely gives you an idea of the difficulty given the complexity of the program and this without any CAD, tell us how much time would be required to design advanced missiles without all the gear that is available since 30 years, for the record the first electronic simulators were released during the second half of the 70s, i designed electronic circuitries and i just cant imagine how i would have done without thoses tools.
I have no doubt about your good faith, i m not saying that you are wrong since i wont use my sole opinion as reference, as said i ll check for sources before making any other statement about the decceleration issue and also the interaction between the space craft , earth and the moon, there is no analytical solution in a gravity system implying three corpses, iirc Henri Poincarré solved the problem by discovering that it was a quasi brownian system, read not predictible accurately and chaotic with no convergence.
Why do we care so much about Russia annexing Crimea and "the new Russia" (corridor from them to Crimea) when we didn't do much over China annexing Tibet or Israel annexing great swaths of the West Bank? Is it because we owe China big bucks and are Israel's "special friend"? But I guess our foreign policy has often been hypocritical. It sends the wrong message.