Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Lost my respect with 9/11 article (Score 1) 778

by L0cke (#15221994) Attached to: Wal-mart's Wikipedia War
I'll play.
This is way off topic, but I'll play back.


Please explain:
- why Neil Armstrong never gave any interview. After all, he was the first man to walk on the moon!


He was chosen for the mission because of his experience in Gemini, especially with the way he handled the near-disaster of Gemini 8, and not so much for his public skills. That said, Armstrong had many interviews, especially in the time immediately following Apollo 11. After he retired from NASA, he retired from public life. He seems to just be a very private person, and was never comfortable with publicity. His crewmate, Buzz Aldrin is an active advocate for manned space travel, however, and continues to give interviews on a regular basis.


- why has any other nation EVER went to the moon, if it was doable so long ago, what's so hard about it TODAY (most of all, why did URSS not attempt going there, they were the first to achieve every step in this race, except moon human landing. They simply decided to stop?)


It is VERY expensive and very hard to go to the moon, then as it is now. It was only possible because at the peak of the program, nearly 1% of the US GDP was spent on Apollo. This would be the equivalent of about $80 billion today. The USSR *did* attempt a program to go there, but their N-1 rocket (roughly equivalent to the Saturn V, but with 30 engines on the first stage and less payload capacity) failed on all three (unmanned) test flights. They also lost their chief rocket scientist, S. P. Korolev shortly before the N-1 program.


- why did USA scrap the moon landing program, it was very succesful!


As I said above, it is VERY expensive to go to the moon. Even if we could now do it for half the cost, do you think NASA could justify $40 billion a year on a single program? Well, I'm sure they could, but would Congress agree? :)


More fun:
- why did they only take a couple of photos? Compare this with the mars rovers, we are literraly drowned in pictures. You'd think they would take a lot more if they send actual HUMANS there.


THOUSANDS of photos were taken on the moon. Almost all of them are avaliable online. You've probably only seen the few dozen or so that were "pretty". Most of the pictures taken were pretty lousy aesthetically, mainly because the moon landings were scientific expiditions with an emphasis on geology (lunogy?), so there were lots of pictures taken of the ground, rocks, dust, etc. Also the astronauts, while being trained to use the cameras, were not terribly good photographers, with many pictures poorly composed, out of focus, under or over exposed, etc. For obvious reasons, you don't see these pictures often.


- why did they not take a single picture of the stars? The view must have been beautiful up there.


The cameras used, like the human eye, shutter themselves in bright light. All of the Apollo missions landed on the "light" side of the moon. The bright sun would severely overwhelm any light from the stars. The same effect is seen when pictures are taken from orbit on the light side of Earth. The view of the stars was very good in the command module, so much so they were used for checking navigation, and many pictures were taken, though nothing lit by the sun (like the moon or the Earth) could be in view at the time.


- why did they doctor the only images they gave the public?


This is simply not true, and I have seen no credible evidence to the contrary.


No need to have conspiracy theories, asking simple questions is much more fun.


Asking simple questions is fun, but just because the answers aren't widely known or obvious doesn't mean there is any kind of conspiracy.

Never buy from a rich salesman. -- Goldenstern

Working...