Pristanek na luni s 40 letno zamudo

Kaj pa Venera? Venera ima atmosfero, kolikor vem, pa nobenih lun. Kako bi to razložili?

Merim na teorijo, da so lune potrebne za vzdrževanje vrtenja planeta.

Mi lahko kdo razloži, kako je tako "skropucalo" od modula, ki je pristal na luni, luno tudi zapustil. Če na Zemlji rabiš 110m dolgo raketo, da ponese v vesolje ves ta tovor, kako da na luni zadostuje tam max 10m visoka škatlasta tvorba.. če je sila gravitacije 6x manjša še vedno ne pomeni, da lahko zadeve kar brez težav zapustijo območje gravitacije in vzletijo?!

Kaj je pa uradna strokovna razlaga, zakaj ni zvezd na slikah?

peqi> ves ta tovor

Kateri tovor?

_{Therein lies a large part your answer.}

Kaj je pa uradna strokovna razlaga, zakaj ni zvezd na slikah?

Examination of Apollo Moon photographs @ Wikipedia



There are no stars in any of the photos

Hoax proponents frequently point out that there are no stars in the photographs.[5] Yuri Gagarin (who made one orbit of the Earth in 1961) commented that the stars were astonishingly brilliant (see the external link below). Hoax proponents say that NASA chose not to put the stars into the photos because astronomers would have been able to use them to determine whether the photos were taken from the Earth or the Moon, by means of identifying them and comparing their celestial position and parallax to what would be expected for either observation site.


* Stars are also never seen in Space Shuttle, Mir, International Space Station Earth observation photos, or even sporting events that take place at night. The sun in the Earth/Moon area shines as brightly as on a clear noon day on Earth, so cameras used for imaging these things are set for daylight exposure, with quick shutter speeds in order to prevent overexposing the film. The dim light of the stars simply does not have a chance to expose the film. (This effect can be demonstrated on Earth by attempting to view stars from a brightly lit parking lot at night. Only a few of the brightest stars are visible, and shielding the eye with one's hands only marginally improves the view. Science fiction movies and television shows do confuse this issue by depicting stars as visible in space under all lighting conditions. A photographic demonstration of how aperture and shutter speed can turn a lit background ink-black is here. The eye's visual response is much the same.) Stars were seen by every Apollo mission crew except for the unfortunate Apollo 13 (they couldn't see the stars due to the fact that oxygen and water vapor created a haze around the spacecraft). Stars were used for navigation purposes and were occasionally also seen through cabin windows when the conditions allowed. To see stars, nothing lit by sunlight could be in the viewer's field of view.[6]

* Stars are not dramatically brighter in space (above the Earth's atmosphere). Professional astronomer and two-time space shuttle astronaut Ronald A. Parise stated that he could barely see stars at all from space. He had to turn out all of the lights in the shuttle to even glimpse the stars.[7]

* Payload restrictions made the transport of telescope facilities to the Moon unfeasible, and without these ordinary stellar photography would have served no (scientific) purpose. However, even without such facilities, the Moon does offer several advantages as an observation platform. The near-absence of an atmosphere means that stellar imaging is possible at many wavelengths which are not visible from Earth. Long-exposure photos were taken with a special far-ultraviolet camera by Apollo 16 astronauts on April 21, 1972 from the surface of the Moon. (The second photo has some stars labeled.) Some of these photos show the Earth with stars from the Capricornus and Aquarius constellations in the background. The joint Belgium/UK./Holland satellite TD-1 later scanned the sky for stars that are bright in UV light. The TD-1 data obtained with the shortest passband is a close match for the Apollo 16 photographs.[8]

* The ability to determine parallax is limited by the angular resolution of the instrument used. The most advanced dedicated experiment carried out to date—the Hipparcos satellite—achieved resolutions in the milliarcsecond range. Using as baseline the diameter of the Earth's orbit about the Sun (by comparing images taken six months apart), this allowed parallax measurements for stars out to a distance of approximately 1,000 parsecs. However, the distance from Earth to Moon is about a thousand times smaller than that baseline, which means that the detection limit is reduced to about 1 parsec. This is less than the distance to the nearest star, Alpha Centauri. Considering further that the resolution of an image taken with a conventional camera is many times lower than Hipparcos's, any such determination is entirely ruled out.[citation needed]

Original Apollo 14 photo, AS14-64-9191.
Enhancement of photos showing Venus.

* Although stars would not normally be visible to the naked eye during daylight, whether from the Earth, the Moon, or on orbit, the planet Venus (which is much brighter than any of the stars) was actually recorded on film by astronaut Alan Shepard at the conclusion of his second extravehicular activity, during the Apollo 14 mission. Shepard was preparing to ascend the ladder to re-enter the lunar module Antares, when he likely noticed Venus shining brightly next to the crescent Earth. He made a series of photographs with his chest-mounted Hasselblad camera, likely all at 1/250th second exposure, and differing f-stops. Owing to its position closer to the Sun and its complete coverage by clouds, Venus has a higher surface brightness than Earth, and is indeed visible to the unaided eye in broad daylight from Earth, given a sufficiently transparent sky. It would have been plainly visible to Shepard in the lunar sky, and easily recorded on film. For a complete explanation, consult the "Images" section of the Apollo 14 Lunar Surface Journal.[9]

* In the Apollo 11 press conference, Neil Armstrong states that he was "never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the moon by eye" [10] Stars were visible with the naked eye only when they were in the shadow of the Moon. All of the landings were in daylight.[11]

V bistvu je skropucalo zato, ker mora pristati. Nima opcija s padalom pasti v ocean.

>peqi> ves ta tovor

Večina "tovora" misije namenjene na Luno, je na štartu z Zemlje, gorivo samo.

Raketna enačba.

In še malo branja.

'Apollo 11: Remastered' - An Orbiter Film

Je fajn filmček. Saj zdaj mi je jasno, zakaj ni zvezd na slikah, se nisem kaj dosti v to poglabljal.


Glede vzleta pa,... ja precej lahkotno so zapustili luno v primerjavi z zapuščanjem Zemlje.. dejansko pa mu skropucalasto obliko daje ravno pristajalni del modula, ki ostane na luni.

Se posipam s pepelom, če sem za koga postavil preneumna vprašanja (lool).

Kakšna je pa kaj maksimalna hitrost, ki jo rakete dosežejo pri vračanju na Zemljo ter pri kateri višini?

Merim na teorijo, da so lune potrebne za vzdrževanje vrtenja planeta.

Lune NISO potrebne za vzdrževanje rotacije planeta! Kot je že bilo omenjeno dve telesi, ki krožita okrog drug drugega bosta s časom en drugega bremzala. Poleg tega se Venera vrti v drugo smer kot ostali planeti (teorija za tem je, da je imela v preteklosti en tako močan zadetek iz vesolja, da je spremenil rotacijo planeta).

Kakšna je pa kaj maksimalna hitrost, ki jo rakete dosežejo pri vračanju na Zemljo ter pri kateri višini?

Rakete se ne vračajo na zemljo. Vračajo se zgolj kapsule ali pa space shuttle. Space shuttle prileti v atmosfero s hitrostjo približno 30x večjo od zvoka.

Luna je potrebna zato, da se Zemlja preveč ne nagne in bi imeli poleti +100 in bi ocean vrel, ker bi bil skoz dan, pozimi pa -100 ker bi bila skoz noč.

NE zaradi vrtenja.

Hitrost zvoka je odvisna od gostote tekočine (oziroma atmosferskega pritiska). Raje bi vedel hitrost v m/s ali pa km/h, ker mi pri "30x večje od zvoka" manjka podatek o hitrosti zvoka oziroma tlaku pri katerem se meri to hitrost zvoka.

Imaš prav! Shuttle v orbiti se giblje s hitrostjo 27,875km/h. Da ga spravijo iz orbite se Shuttle najprej obrne z repom naprej, vklopi OMS thrusterje in zmanjša hitrost za ~330km/h in se nato poravna za vstop nazaj v atmosfero (nos spet naprej, približno 40 stopinj gor).

Shuttle začne pristajanje pri okoli 27.000 km/h. Z zavijanjem zmanjša hitrost na slabih 3000 km/h. Z nadaljnim zaviranjem pa dokončno "pade" pri 500 km/h
Tile američani naj se naučijo uporabljati mednarodne merske enote...
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/tec... v feetih in mph
U, celo v machih je članek!

Pa vendar ima Venera atmosfero. To je vse.

Ne, ker nimajo Al Gora...

Mislim, da on šteje ocean kot del ozračja, tam pa je tlak mnogo višji.

Uh, a oni mail je okoli zemlje prišel, pa je spet aktualen pri nas ?

Ja, res je. Pa "heavy boots" bomo vsi mogli obut, drugače nas gor potegne, ker je tak blizu...

Hvala za odgovore.

Mi lahko kdo razloži, kako je tako "skropucalo" od modula, ki je pristal na luni, luno tudi zapustil. Če na Zemlji rabiš 110m dolgo raketo, da ponese v vesolje ves ta tovor, kako da na luni zadostuje tam max 10m visoka škatlasta tvorba.. če je sila gravitacije 6x manjša še vedno ne pomeni, da lahko zadeve kar brez težav zapustijo območje gravitacije in vzletijo?!

Kaj je pa uradna strokovna razlaga, zakaj ni zvezd na slikah?

ma kaki 10m na luni je uni zgornji modul velik okoli 3m, pa je samo ze eno eksplozijo ze premagalo kao teznost lune in nato slo enakomerno brez nekega vidnega pospeska izven lunine orbite, kar je malo sumljivo za nas zemljane, prav tako za marsikaterega znanstvenika.

ma kaki 10m na luni je uni zgornji modul velik okoli 3m, pa je samo ze eno eksplozijo ze premagalo kao teznost lune in nato slo enakomerno brez nekega vidnega pospeska izven lunine orbite, kar je malo sumljivo za nas zemljane, prav tako za marsikaterega znanstvenika.

Da... Za dvignit ~5 ton iz Lune ali pa ~3000 ton iz Cape Canaveral-a je zelo primerljiv problem ja.
Daj lepo te prosim pri Bogu (krščanskem, budističnem, muslimanskem, moon hoaxerskem,... kateri koli je že tvoj) nehaj že imenovati za znanstvenike ljudi, ki ne znajo seštevat in množit.

Da izračunaš kolk energije rabiš za dvig z lune 5 ton, ne rabiš bit noben znanstvenik. To zna izračunat vsak osnovnošolec.

CrniE:

To zna izračunat vsak osnovnošolec.

Vsak, ki je (bil) prisoten in priseben v šoli, treba dodat.

Check this out:

http://ronrecord.com/astronauts/armstro...

Se pravi je lahko vsak osnovnosolec astronavt in dela za NASO, ke gadno.
Ja, edino kar znajo astronavti in NASA-ini znanstevniki izračunat, je to, koliko energije rabiš za dviginit določen predmet!

Hm jaz pa ne razumem, zakaj je toliko odložitev poletov zadnje čase. Kar skoz nekaj spušča, ne deluje v redu..a je kriva tehnologija ali pa slabo pripravljene zadeve?

Hm jaz pa ne razumem, zakaj je toliko odložitev poletov zadnje čase.

Ker vsaka napaka stane milijarde dolarjev in kar nekaj zivljenj. In ker je raketa malo bolj komplicirana zadeva od skiroja.

Ali je potem kriva površnost, da se te stvari dogajajo?Mislim ne vem kolikokrat sem slišal, da spet pušča na rezervoarju za gorivo..pa kljub temu, da je tam na desetine, če ne stotine prej vrhunskih znanstvenikov in inženirjev ne morejo uštimat en rezervoar za gorivo, da ne bi spuščal...Men to vse deluje bolj neresno.

Sem vidu, da vam dela težave tlak na Veneri in tlak na Zemlji, če bi bila tudi Zemlja tako blizu Sonca in bi njen ocean izhlapel.

Kakšen bi bil tlak na tej vroći Zemlji, preden bi izgubila večji del atmosfere?

Jaz pravim, da skoraj 2000 barov.