• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

Vixen said:
A good answer here:

"A more careful calculation, including the effects of the Sun is slightly more optimistic and provides a Hill radius of r=58,050km. In either case though, hopefully you can see that the radius for a selenostationary orbit is much farther than the Hill radius, meaning that no stable orbit can be achieved as it would be too much perturbed by the Earth and/or the Sun.

One final, semi-related point. It turns out almost no orbits around the Moon are stable, even if they're inside the Hill radius. This is primarily to do with mass concentrations (or mascons) in the Moon's crust and mantle which make the gravitational field non-uniform and act to degrade orbits. There are only a handful of "stable" orbits and these are only achieved by orbiting in such a way as to miss passing over these mascons."

Astronomy Stack Exchange
Click to expand...
It may be a good answer to something. But it has no connection whatsoever to the post by JesseCuster that you quoted. Your "brain" works in very strange ways.
 
Vixen said:
View attachment 74569

schematic (not to scale) of Hill spheres (as 2D radii) and Roche limits of each body of the Sun-Earth-Moon system. The actual Hill radius for the Moon is on the order of 60,000 km (i.e., extending less than one-sixth the distance of the 378,000 km between the Moon and the Earth).[9]

Orbit of the Moon - Wikipedia https://share.google/2ztDaKzm0GaYwzkDK
Click to expand...
Did you post that on Wikipedia?
 
Vixen said:
A good answer here:

"A more careful calculation, including the effects of the Sun is slightly more optimistic and provides a Hill radius of r=58,050km. In either case though, hopefully you can see that the radius for a selenostationary orbit is much farther than the Hill radius, meaning that no stable orbit can be achieved as it would be too much perturbed by the Earth and/or the Sun.

One final, semi-related point. It turns out almost no orbits around the Moon are stable, even if they're inside the Hill radius. This is primarily to do with mass concentrations (or mascons) in the Moon's crust and mantle which make the gravitational field non-uniform and act to degrade orbits. There are only a handful of "stable" orbits and these are only achieved by orbiting in such a way as to miss passing over these mascons."

Astronomy Stack Exchange
Click to expand...
How does that explain what you mean by "geopositioned" or "geopositioning"?
 
Vixen said:
A good answer here:
Click to expand...
No, that doesn't explain in any way what you mean by "non-geopositioned."

Vixen said:
As I already explained, this would cause such a hypothetical satellite to be sucked into Earth's gravitational field.
Click to expand...
Are you trying to say that "achieved its 'hill'" means to orbit at an altitude exceeding the radius of the Hill Sphere?
 
Vixen said:
Limited
Click to expand...
Not really. Any number of contact rolls can be made from a dupe master. There's no inherent limit. But not many people find contact rolls of 130 or so exposures to be helpful. It's more of a souvenir. That explains why Arnold is proud of his.

However, none of that addresses the fact that the film stock itself is unremarkable. What makes it remarkable for Arnold is the significance of what's exposed on it.
 
Reformed Offlian said:
No one excluding you is hypothesizing such a satellite. Nobody including you has made any sort of case that it would be useful for anything.
Click to expand...
Selenostationary* satellite images for live TV broadcast from the Moon's surface without needing special logistics because of course, it would theoretically match the Moon's orbit.

*cf geostationary satellites
 
JayUtah said:
Not really. Any number of contact rolls can be made from a dupe master. There's no inherent limit. But not many people find contact rolls of 130 or so exposures to be helpful. It's more of a souvenir. That explains why Arnold is proud of his.

However, none of that addresses the fact that the film stock itself is unremarkable. What makes it remarkable for Arnold is the significance of what's exposed on it.
Click to expand...
If you are talking about copies then they can be in any format you choose.

We are referring here to the original film as supposedly used by Apollo11.

We can all take copies from the internet if we want! That's hardly what is being referred to as the same camera film being mass or limited produced for the public.
 
Vixen said:
Selenostationary* satellite images for live TV broadcast from the Moon's surface without needing special logistics because of course, it would theoretically match the Moon's orbit.

*cf geostationary satellites
Click to expand...
What radius of orbit would be required for a selenostationary satellite?
 
Vixen said:
Selenostationary* satellite images for live TV broadcast from the Moon's surface...
Click to expand...
Cargo cult nonsense.

You're conflating two television experiences. A TV broadcast from the Moon's surface needs no intermediary. The antenna on the landed spacecraft, or on the separate high-gain antenna, or on the lunar rover communicates directly with ground stations.

A TV broadcast from lunar orbit also requires no intermediary. The high-gain antenna on the spacecraft communnicates directly with the ground stations. Obviously from orbit you can take television images of the surface from above.

Vixen said:
...without needing special logistics because of course, it would theoretically match the Moon's orbit.
Click to expand...
A selenostationary orbit matches the Moon's rotation, not its orbit.

Allen and Weaver claim that television pictures from lunar orbit (not the lunar surface) can only have been shot from a spacecraft in selenostationary orbit, which is impossible because of the limitations imposed by the Hill Sphere. Therefore they claim those orbital television images must be fake.

They are simply wrong according to the facts. The images are not stationary. The aspect of the images changes measurably, corresponding to having been shot from a moving platform.
 
Vixen said:
He's got it! By Jove he's got it!!!
Click to expand...
That's what we've been telling you for months despite your garbled protests. The problem is that Allen and Weaver say that the lunar orbit television pictures could only have been taken from a spacecraft in selenostationary orbit, and they try to explain why such a spacecraft would be necessary and why it's impossible. I explained at length why their assumptions are wrong.
 
Vixen said:
If you are talking about copies then they can be in any format you choose.
Click to expand...
Correct, so nothing you want to say about Arnold matters.

Vixen said:
We are referring here to the original film as supposedly used by Apollo11.
Click to expand...
Yes. You tried to say that if such film were readily available, why did Arnold cherish his copy roll so much. The answer is obviously that its importance is what it contains, not where the film stock came from.

Vixen said:
That's hardly what is being referred to as the same camera film being mass or limited produced for the public.
Click to expand...
The Ektachrome film used on Apollo 11 was widely available no matter how much you try to obfuscate and deny that fact.
 
Vixen said:
Selenostationary* satellite images for live TV broadcast from the Moon's surface without needing special logistics because of course, it would theoretically match the Moon's orbit.
Click to expand...
The confused scenario you're proposing requires special logistics, specifically, a communications satellite in specific orbit. This is completely unnecessary. There's line of sight between the earth and the moon.

What problem is this satellite supposed to be solving? How is having to put a new satellite in a specific lunar orbit NOT special logistics?
 
Vixen said:
Selenostationary* satellite images for live TV broadcast from the Moon's surface without needing special logistics because of course, it would theoretically match the Moon's orbit.

*cf geostationary satellites
Click to expand...
The Earth is selenostationary.

When you are on the moon, the Earth stands still in the sky. It rotates once a day but it does not move across the sky. You knew that, right?

So you can beam a TV signal directly from the near side of the moon to the Earth. Why would you do otherwise?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom