ARTEMIS II

[bobh]

Re: ARTEMIS II

They keep sayig on the news that "they're seeing the other side of the moon for the first time"
Shirley that's wrong?
The Apollo missions all ha modules that orbited the moon, didn't hey?

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Re: ARTEMIS II

They keep sayig on the news that "they're seeing the other side of the moon for the first time"
Shirley that's wrong?
The Apollo missions all ha modules that orbited the moon, didn't hey?

It depends on who 'they' are.

[cyril evans awaydays]

Re: ARTEMIS II

They keep sayig on the news that "they're seeing the other side of the moon for the first time"
Shirley that's wrong?
The Apollo missions all ha modules that orbited the moon, didn't hey?

Met Dave Gilmour once. We chatted about lunar landings and in his view if anyone doubted that humans hadn't seen the dark side of the moon they must have brain damage.

[poc]

Re: ARTEMIS II

They keep sayig on the news that "they're seeing the other side of the moon for the first time"
Shirley that's wrong?
The Apollo missions all ha modules that orbited the moon, didn't hey?

perhaps they hadnt built a film set of it

[Heathblue]

Re: ARTEMIS II

perhaps they hadnt built a film set of it

Now now, there are those who will treat this comment with stoicism.

[Heathblue]

Re: ARTEMIS II

Latest picture of Earth from NASA via Artemis II

https://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/fd02_for-pao/

[Heathblue]

Re: ARTEMIS II

That would be a shame. Flat Earthers are good for a laugh.

Why are you so unsure of the Apollo missions?

IMG_20190629_183754 (2).jpg

Close up Inspection of this Engine, it appeared less well built than a Friday afternoon Engine coming out of British Leyland when Derek Robinson (Red Robbo) was running the place.

I didn't think that the twin SU carburetors were man enough for the job.

I'm sure there are others on here who will have been to the Kennedy Space Centre, it's a great visitor attraction (or was) !!! I'd be delighted if unequivocal proof/evidence of 69 the moon landing was confirmed.

IMG_20190629_204009 (2).jpg

[delmbox]

Re: ARTEMIS II

[ATTACH=CONFIG]6927[/ATTACH]

Close up Inspection of this Engine, it appeared less well built than a Friday afternoon Engine coming out of British Leyland when Derek Robinson (Red Robbo) was running the place.

I didn't think that the twin SU carburetors were man enough for the job.

I'm sure there are others on here who will have been to the Kennedy Space Centre, it's a great visitor attraction (or was) !!! I'd be delighted if unequivocal proof/evidence of 69 the moon landing was confirmed.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]6928[/ATTACH]

if this post is a bbq job I take my hat off to you and Mozzer because this is genuinely brilliant

[goats]

Re: ARTEMIS II

Never really been a conspiracy theorist but looking at the technology being used for this mission, it’s almost hard to believe they did land in the moon 50 odd years ago, when there basically wasn’t any computer tech compared to today, let alone the engine/rocket capabilities…

[Heathblue]

Re: ARTEMIS II

Never really been a conspiracy theorist but looking at the technology being used for this mission, itÂ’s almost hard to believe they did land in the moon 50 odd years ago, when there basically wasnÂ’t any computer tech compared to today, let alone the engine/rocket capabilitiesÂ…

This particular mission is only a flyby, no landing. 56 years since a landing.

[The Bloop]

Re: ARTEMIS II

Never really been a conspiracy theorist but looking at the technology being used for this mission, it’s almost hard to believe they did land in the moon 50 odd years ago, when there basically wasn’t any computer tech compared to today, let alone the engine/rocket capabilities…

Has the technology used changed that much though? Isn't it a combination of weight, power and direction? - the methods of calculation for which, wouldn't have changed, but maybe the numbers are a bit bigger.

[goats]

Re: ARTEMIS II

Has the technology used changed that much though? Isn't it a combination of weight, power and direction? - the methods of calculation for which, wouldn't have changed, but maybe the numbers are a bit bigger.

I think it has, what is it 275,000 miles to the moon? Then back? The average jet engine plane flies for what 12 hrs back in the 70’s? 2000 miles max? Hhmmmmmm mmm
Never given it much thought before but the more I think about it and the dodgy images of them on the moon, it does look like a film set from James Bond.

[Canton Kev]

Re: ARTEMIS II

I think it has, what is it 275,000 miles to the moon? Then back? The average jet engine plane flies for what 12 hrs back in the 70’s? 2000 miles max? Hhmmmmmm mmm
Never given it much thought before but the more I think about it and the dodgy images of them on the moon, it does look like a film set from James Bond.

Jet planes are hardly rocket science…

Are you going to doubt a submarine’s ability to reach the Titanic because your old Robin Reliant used to leak in winter?

[Michael Morris]

Re: ARTEMIS II

Live coverage of the splashdown

[Bluebird Karen]

Re: ARTEMIS II

A bullet does ~3,000 km/h.
NASA says these guys hit Earth at 40,000 km/h — that’s 10+ bullets stacked together… but somehow slow down using parachutes and land safely in the ocean Uber Boat style?
So a bullet shreds flesh instantly but a human in a metal flask can hit the atmosphere at 10× that speed, turn into a flying fireball, lose signal, cook the outside to hell and still land like it’s a beach holiday?
But yeah… “trust the heat shield.”

Are they going to upload their own the mobile phone footage of the Sun ,the stars solar system, the re entry and splashdown ?