First US lunar lander in more than 50 years rockets toward moon with commercial deliveries

submitted by neolib from apnews.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]SMCAB 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

The last time the U.S. launched a moon-landing mission was in December 1972. Apollo 17’s Gene Cernan and Harrison Schmitt became the 11th and 12th men to walk on the moon, closing out an era that has remained NASA’s pinnacle.

Yet they threw away all the data and info or lost it all? A mother keeps her little rascals kindergarten paperwork in a tote for eternity, yet NASA lost all the data pertaining to its "pinnacle." I think their pinnacle is swindling 71 million dollars a day from you.

I'll bet anything those aren't private companies either. Friends of the program I say.

Edit: They now have engine problems and have the solar panels facing the wrong way? For fucks sake. Why would the propulsion system of the lander have anything to do with this? The lander isn't flying the rocket is.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

They now have engine problems and have the solar panels facing the wrong way? For fucks sake. Why would the propulsion system of the lander have anything to do with this? The lander isn't flying the rocket is.

You're spot on.

Have you seen the evidence proving rockets can't function in space?
Rocket [exhaust] thrust pushes off of the atmosphere, and that's why they use second stage rockets. Analogous to a jet ski impeller forcing water out into/against a lake (body of water), etc.

The second stage rockets diffusers are tuned for efficiency the lower pressure environment of the upper atmosphere.

Zero atmospheric pressure in space = zero rocket efficiency. Period.

An inescapable fact of rocket propulsion.

I'm curious about the solar panel as they relate to engines. Maybe they have ion engines, or another tech. But probably not.

Like you said, They'll hoax away for $70 million a day (paraphrased).

[–]SMCAB 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Look into Hubble if you haven't. Just a couple quick notes. The specs of the Hubble telescope, match the specs of the telescope on the plane they call SOFIA. That plane flies in our atmosphere. Some believe that this is what's actually taking the pictures thay claim the Hubble is taking. In fact, they have both released pictures on the same day that match eachother. That makes no sense.

If you study Orbital Degredation, the math says that the Hubble should have plummeted into our oceans years ago, yet they keep "pushing it" back into place. They do not fly missions there to reload the "propulsion" that supposedly keeps it in place. Yet somehow they are able to just push it back into place, without it flying away perpetually, which is exactly why they tell you a voyager type probe keeps flying away perpetually is possible. They push it and it just keeps going because there is nothing to stop it. Yet they fly so close to planets, but never get caught in orbit, but they have no propulsion to get out of orbit.

It's all bullshit.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's all bullshit.

99%.

Near earth orbit is possible. They can launch satellites into orbit.

They can slingshot it out of the atmosphere.