Printable View
I believe the faceplates were reflective (gold plated, I think) in order to prevent the astronauts from being blinded by the unshielded sunlight. Without protection, the intensity of the light as opposed to the filtered light we get here on earth would be too much for their eyes.Quote:
Originally Posted by udsuna
Possibly. I could point out that, on the moon, they never were in direct sun. But, realistically, Astronauts do stuff like space-walks and whatnot, so they probably just make all the visors the same way to save people the trouble. Yeah, that makes sence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkpatrick
Udsuna: You're making a lot of unsupported claims there. The photos taken while on the moons surface certainly suggest that the astronauts and the lander WERE in full sun at times. This photo, for example. Note the well defined shadows, as well as the lens flare. As this particular photo was of a test involving solar flares, that test would probably work better when in LOS of the Sun. ;)
Also, provide evidence that the Apollo 11 launch site is not visible from Earth. Has this point ever been raised by any mainstream organisation, even in passing?
If you couldn't see the Landing Site from Earth, you couldn't see the Earth from the landing site, which they did :p
By the same token, I can see the Eiffel Tower from my room, but you can't see my room from the Eiffel tower, so my room is fake.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doomgaze
Edit:
Map of the landing sites.
Transcript of the Apollo 11 landing.
You could, though, with a good enough telescope. You have line-of-sight.
EDIT: Ohhhhhh. I just realized what udsuna is talking about.
Yes, as far as I know, we do not know where the Apollo 11 Lunar Module is. Yes, we know where the site is, but for some reason, we don't know where the LM ended up after it was released from the Command Module. Apollo 16's LM was also lost. The rest were deliberately impacted into the moon, with the exceptions of Apollo 10, which just released its LM off into a heliocentric orbit, and Apollo 13, which obviously burned up in the Earth's atmosphere.
I hadn't read the post before about using a telescope. >.>
Edit: omg Ba. <3 Ba.
I originally meant to type "if you couldn't theoretically see the landing site from Earth..."
Lost a word somehow.
Neil Armstrong would say he was there.
If I read this correctly, what Doom means is that if the moonbase couldn't be seen because of being on the far side, then the Earth couldn't be seen either. The Earth could be seen, ergo it wasn't on the far side.
who said the pole was even made of alluminium?
it would be a more stable and better supportive metal like steel
i can't help being dyspraxic you know i struggle enough to keep up to date with the higher level science but it pays off i'm enjoying it and i'm still learning i only started the course and my laid back attitude does no good im 15 not a 25 year old astronomer
Look, the pole wasn't vibrating like a tuning fork. It was moving because the astronaut was moving it. The motion transferred to the flag. The metal used for the pole makes no difference in this case.
I can't really comment on this , and I know this is a bit off-topic , but did anyone hear the theory about " Close Encounters of the Third Kind " receiving government funding to prepare people for an alien visitation ?
Or the one about Elvis being Jesus reincarnated ????
who even said there was a jesus?
hello the astronaut did move it but the flag shouldnt have been moving so violently where there is no air to carry it and where the gravity is so low earth's laws are screwed
Actually, the flag would wave even MORE without wind resistance. It would also wave more with less gravity to pull it down. The flag would have a much easier time of things on the moon than on earth. As I've said repeatedly, there is no way available to determine things by the behavior of the flag itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoden
And how am I supposed to prove a negative? You say "prove we can't see the site"- how the HELL does that work? The point is, there is no image of the first landing site, aside from the ones supposedly taken AT the site itself. It seems to me that "hey, look, it's a picture of the thing!!!" is the ultimate way to prove we really landed there. Yet, there is none. I can't even find a close-up image of that little corner of the moon. Even on NASA's site. You can find from-earth images of other landings, though.
Which means one of only 3 things:
1. Our landing is invisible from earth, as is the generally accepted theory. Something that was actually disproven by that one pic taken. It'd HAVE to be visible from earth to show the earth, no doubt.
2. The landing happened somewhere other than it was reported to. I don't know how effective 1969's tracking tech was. But I'm pretty sure they had triangulation tech. advanced enough to make sure. Sailors could triangulate thousands of years ago using just the stars, a compass, a map, and a sextant.
3. The landing site itself is invisible. Either by not being there, or having been destroyed. Since nothing happens on the moon, it probably wasn't destroyed. We haven't had a suitably large meteor strike since the landing occured.
Can't give you anything more than that to chew on. Unless you have an alternate theory?
