Apollo 11 press confrence*** I smell a hoax***!

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

you can express the emotion with ....mathematical formula: sum(AH^15 to A^6)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't convince me not one bit. If the Hubble Telescope can take pictures of distant Galaxies, Nebula, why can't it take a Hi-Rez picture of the lunar surface?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

how hq do you wanna go? this thing is already hq. Americans were on the moon! stop denying it (if u are). Movies show that they have been there.

 

Yep.

I think that's exactly what I said. If a particularly violent flare were to occur, they would have been killed.

Nope.

1 - KIWI A

The first nuclear rocket test, conducted in July 1959, used uncoated UO2 plates as fuel elements. This test reached a maximum temperature of 2683 K and a power level of 70 MWt. Vibrations during operations produced significant structural damage in the reactor core.

The first nuclear reactor tested, KIWI-A, successfully demonstrated the principle of nuclear rockets, but it used unclad fuel plates that were not representative of later tests.

2 - KIWI A'

This test, conducted in July 1959, incorporated significant modifications in the core design used in KIWI A. The fuel consisted of short cylindircal Uranium Oxide elements in graphite modules, with four axial channels coated with Niobium Carbide using chemical vapor deposition. The reactor ran for 6 minutes at power levels as high as 85 MWt.

KIWI-A prime, tested in 1960, replaced the fuel plates with NbC plated graphite modules with 4 micron diameter UO2 particles embedded in the graphite matrix. However, some structural damage occurred in this improved design during its 6 minute test.

3 - KIWI A3

The subsequent KIWI-A3 reactor used a higher temperature Chemical Vapor Deposition process, resulting in a thicker NbC coat with improved adherence. Some core damage occurred during the 5 minute test in October 1959, which reached power levels of 100 MWt, with some fuel elements showing blistering and corrosion. Generally this reactor test was considered successful.

Yes, this counts as "several" all in '59.

Whatever.

Yes.

Correct.

http://www.clavius.org/techcrater.html

So, you didn't explain how they pulled off such amazingly realistic special effects in '69.

 

Just curious... If it really was faked, how did they get the dust kicked up by the wheels of the buggy, to act as though it was in a vacuum? If it was on Earth, the dust would hang in the air and get blown around.

 

Now you're demonstrating just why conspiracy folks (like you) are ridiculed and laughed at. It's been explained to you in more than enough detail just what the resolution capabilities of hubble are. Now, if you insist on not researching the relevant properties of telescopes, such as resolving power and light gathering ability, then you shoud shut the fuck up. Distant galaxies are big. Far, but big. The angular res of hubble is 0.1 arc second. This is about 60m/pixel on the moons surface and 6 light years on the image of a galaxy that is a few hundred million lightyears away.

Read a book.

 

Answer:

Plus, exactly what Superluminal just said.... nimrod.

 

/yawn

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

LOL

That about sums it up doesn't it?

 

trying to gather up an argument that has long since lost its grounds...

 

Now I get it! We lack the Technology to get a Hi-rez picture of the lunar surface. But have the Technology to send a man to the moon 36 years ago.

 

Ummm... Yes. It's called "optical physics".

So, the answer to all of your questions from now on is "shut the fuck up you ignorant asshat".

You might as well find a different forum to abuse. And, by the way:

Shut the fuck up you ignorant asshat.

 

Thread closure in 3... 2... 1...

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You are assaulting member of this community. Please stop it.

 

Bite me.

 

You are encouraging violence on a member of this community, which is you. STOP ENCOURAGIN VIOLENCE. I do not agree to violent ways.

Although if ur a grl, ill bite you on a chick softly ...if u r a grl and let me.

 

Excuse me, I'm not suggesting violence of any kind. However, you are engaging in sexual discrimination and a double standard of response. Shame on you.

 

shame on me.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!