Weak Equivalence Principle test on the moon

[arkor7]

great video

[secestro]

Gallileo was right....

[weweallthewayhome]

thats not the equivalence principle -_-

[flyboyjin]

@weweallthewayhome It can be argued that it is a result of the weak equivalence principle, just not the version your used to in GR.

[RockyBalboa211]

How did we get to God on this video.. I mean shouldnt we be talking about David Scott dropping the feather and the hammer? Very good evidence that he was on the moon.

[DJGhese]

@RockyBalboa211

Not saying that he wasn't on Moon... just saying it would be cheaper to fake that on earth...

[kayaking4autism]

@DJGhese the hammer and feather were both held on fishing wire and pulleyed into the little pits where you see they land and the stagecrew lowered the two wires at the same rate as each other. The dude bouncing around had his own separate rope crew.

[jonolewis]

The idea of there being a god is a theory. I don't think it's a very good one - but I don't understand why so many people are so keen to believe it is the correct one. It may be, it may not be. An open mind is a good thing. I don't know what's right, and I know no one else really know what;s 'right'. But Einstein/Galileo/Darwin/Russel­l have made big strides in helping us understand this universe.

[sophiamargot]

Two thumbs up for you! I agree...

[noobadoc]

also..u shud be ashamed to claim the moon landing was fake..think..what wud the gain from this...wud have been better to fake going mars and finding an alien

[noobadoc]

if god is so clever how can u hope to understand him/her newdirection..just a thot..or are u claiming to know the mind of god?

[RockyBalboa211]

No one can understand God lol.

[NewDirection4us]

God created everything. Scientists merely observe what God has made and then try to take credit for it and acting like they are so smart. All of the scientists who ever lived if their intelligence was combined would be less than 1% of all of the knowledge which God has.

[NewDirection4us]

Some things in motion stay in motion, but not all. It usually takes some sort of force to keep something in motion. Of course, God can keep anything in motion that he wants to stay in motion. And.... anything in motion must have had someting to start it in motion unless your theory is that it has always been in motion.

[964project]

uh, all things in motion stay in motion outside of the confines of a planet. that's how the planets revolve around the sun. it takes no force to continue the motion.

[NewDirection4us]

Some tremendous force had to put them into motion in their orbits in the first place, and to keep them in their proper orbits. They aren't just out there in space going in random directions. You and most of the atheists that populate YT say it just happened. I say God did it.

[964project]

it's called an accretion disc. the ball of gas and matter before our solar system existed mostly ended up in the sun, and what was left around it smashed together (or in the case of gas giants just got attracted to a core) and formed the planets we have today. you only think god did it because your parents told you to. you're as much of an atheist as I am about thousands of gods, literally thousands, I just go one farther. Thousands with many many millions believing in them.

[NewDirection4us]

No, I don't believe God created everything because my parents told me so. I believe it because it's obvious that the complexity and precision of everything required the intelligent design of a creator, not random chance. God allows me to see it whereas he allows Satan, the ruler of the world to blind you atheists to the truth. God chose me to believe. All credit goes to God, not me. Had he not chosen me I would be a blind atheist like you.

[964project]

tell me, why is it more likely that your god is the correct one than any other god that has existed? I've never heard a good answer to this question from a believer.

and it's obvious if you never read the scientific explanations for anything, but when you do you realize there's no need for one.

and intelligent design? there's some pretty fucking horrible design in the human body. Giving birth could be a very easy process, but because of our evolution it was deadly to shitloads of women.

[NewDirection4us]

INtelligent design? Yes! True, the human body could be better BUT it is perfect for what it is designed for. It gets the job done. Believers will get a better body eventually, one like Jesus has after the resurrection when he appears to his followers. Childbirth is painful but it is a miracle that a man and a woman could produce a child at all. I mean, according to your theory, they both had to "evolve" together, exactly matching reproduction systems, to be able to produce children.

[NewDirection4us]

I say they were designed with matching reproductive systems to compliment each other, work together, to produce a child. AS to why "my God" is the right God, and not the flying teapot or something else, because of the Holy Bible. The Holy Spirit tells me the Bible is God's word to mankind. My God says that he is the the only God, the Godhead...Father, Son and Holy Ghost, that there are no other creators. By choosing me along with others, the elect, we have a gift of faith. Some people don't.

[964project]

haha, the bible tells you to believe in the bible. very convincing. you realize that all other holy texts say the same thing, right?

and you think the most poignant example of another god is Russel's teapot? How about zeus, apollo, thor or another god that people actually believe in.

I find it hilarious that believers call atheists blind when so many never even bother to look at any dissenting evidence.

Faith is not a virtue or a gift. It's blindly committing yourself to lies.

[NewDirection4us]

If I'm wrong I'm no worse off when I die. If I'm right then I have eternal life of bliss to look forward to when I die. Either way, I'm no worse off than you atheists that believe in nothing, except humanism. If you're right, then thats the end of the line for you when you die, but if you're wrong then it is either the end of the line (no consciousness) at your death, or.... you may suffer eternal punishment for your sins since as an unbeliever you are not covered by Christ's blood.

[964project]

perfect? uh, no. animals in nature very seldom have any difficulty giving birth, whereas it used to kill FORTY PERCENT of women in the 1800s. why would god design us in a way that resulted in shitloads of our women dying off? how is that in any way perfect?

and yes, they did evolve together - and any one side that mutated so the reproductive organs didn't work wouldn't have passed down their messed up genes to the next generation. You've obviously not even bothered to question your faith.

[cyberflo999]

I acknoledge that you believe differently, that many do not believe what you do, or what I do. But what you are willing to accept is very, very scary.

Do not idly reject science because you do not understand its ways to study the world. The Holy bible presents itself as one way to understand the world. If you accept it, it is a truth that cannot be questionned, sinced no experiement has been done to prove its allegations. What Galileo Galilei did were simple experiments and observations.

[cyberflo999]

(continued from previous post)

Who hasn't thown a stone and a feather to test his allegation - we need here to remind ourselves here that if in some cases the feather does fall later on the ground, it is because of the air all around it; on the moon there is no air, so there is 100% success in this attempt! - ?

He was deeply religious and also friend to a cardinal that was to become pope. He simply yearned to understand God's Design and glimpsed ome answers.

[cyberflo999]

(continued from my two previous posts)

I am not religious. I am atheist. To me, Religion is an invention of men's mind that took various forms according to the knowledge people had of nature in their time.

Such belief as intelligent design must not be taken seriously. Confronted with reality, facts (and not invention of scientists; I would like to insist: a scientist who invents his data is not a scientist)

[cyberflo999]

(continued from my three previous posts)

... they do not hold true. Fossils are not sculptures on stones, and mankind and dinosaurs never met. And there is ample proof of that.

Science cannot reject your belief in an Almighty God that designed the universe, simply because this cannot be proven. It relies on faith, a creation of the human mind, stronger in some of us.

And after all, if God has gifted us with this amazing brain capable of thinking on its own,...

[cyberflo999]

(continued from my four previous posts. To be read in order...)

... why should we not use it to better understand the things around us, the very things He Himself crafted? Why would men not use what they have been gifted with to enlighten themselves with knowledge?

[NewDirection4us]

I accept science, after all, God is responsible for it. What I don't accept is trying to use science to put forward lies like evolution and that man evolved from monkey, or relatives of apes, or however you atheists want to say it. Every creature is a separate creation including man. No creature evolved, all were created by God. That is truthful science.

[964project]

This is hilarious. You accept that the planets revolve around the sun, but you don't accept evolution? Both are equally contradicted by the bible. Why accept one and not the other?

We atheists do have a lot of explaining to do - which is exactly what science does. Religion tries to make ancient desert scribblings relevant to modern life by butchering the holy book. Just because you have never read the scientific explanations for our existence doesn't mean they don't exist.

[964project]

I also love the fact that you say you accept science, and then say that it lies. Science is impartial, it makes conclusions based on evidence. Religion teaches you to believe the same things that people believed thousands of years ago because it hurts your ego to accept that we aren't special.

It's also great that you're able to dismiss whole fields of research without having any idea what they talk about. How do you know it's wrong when you've never read about any of the evidence?

[cyberflo999]

so basically you accept science only so far as it does not contradict your beliefs... you truly are an odd person

[ex0rt]

And what created God? What came before this so-called 'God'? Did he just appear out of nowhere? Has he been in 'existance' forever? Highly unlikely.

[NewDirection4us]

Yes, God has always existed. No one could create such a wonderful and powerful and holy being. He is the Creator. He knows everything and he can't learn anymore because he already knoiws it all. It is hard to imagine the greatness of God, but it is even harder to imagine that the creation could exist withoout a creator. God is awesome in all ways. He is the greatest and most powerful. Jesus Christ, God's Son,. is also great and has saved us from our sins. Salvation is only thru Jesus.

[timberman78]

Well, somehow this video turned the discussion around the existence of a god.

It would make things much simpler if you think of god as an idea invented by man to cover up the plethora of missing information in the humans knowledge. e.g. when there's something u dont know why is happening, u just say god made it so, and that's it - the question is answered. god is great to cover up the faults in man and complement him. God is a great invention, but the space here is not enough to say it all.

[fizikonline]

A wagon needs a loco to be pulled but a loco doesn't need another one to be pulled.

[NewDirection4us]

If there is no resistence then technically once something is moving it could continue indefinitely. Buit it takes force to start it unless you believe the planets have always been spinning and orbiting around the sun. Gravitational pull from each planet to the sun could explain the movement of planets but can't explain the Earth's rotation or it's tilting on it's axis precisely the same every season. You athesists have a lot if explaining to do to try to explain away the existence of God.

[ferdmert]

why is this Equivalence Principle test weak? looks pretty indisputable to me!

[passemort1515]

The Earth is slowing it's spin, this is a scientisit proven fact. A day in cretaceous was shortes than a day taday.

Sorry if I have made a few english fault I began learn english just for 5 years.

[NewDirection4us]

Kojak, the Earth's rotation speed is not slowing down. It has remained a constant rotational speed of about 1,000 MPH at the equator, which means of course, if you were standing in one spot along the equator you would make one complete rotation, travel 24,000 miles, in 24 hours, or one day. This is how we measure time. One Earth rotation = one Eart day. One Earth orbit trip around our sun = one year. God is awesome the way his mighty power controls the planets movements so precisely.

[NewDirection4us]

However you choose to explain the planets rotating motion and their orbiting motion around the sun, the fact still remains that something had to start them spinning at some point in time. Things can remain in motion indefintely in the vacuum of space, but the Earth and it lower atmosphere is at GREAT friction with the vacuum of space. The Earth continues to spin at precisely the same speed in spite of that friction. The invisible hand of God keeps it spinning, just as God controls everything!

[kojak1two]

you can't have friction against a vacuum. Anyway the earth is slowly slowing it's spin. Try learning some facts that have been proven.

[NewDirection4us]

I can see how they got there so fast, but I can't see how they got back so fast! Not without tremendous propulsion to get them up to tremedous speed.

[Frapazoid]

The short version is that it's lot easier to come back because:

1) Going there they need an epic rocket to get off the ground and into space, but return to the surface is done by air-breaking.

2) They leave a lot of mass at the Moon.

But if you want a deeper understanding you'll need to read about Kepler's Laws of Motion, Orbital Maneuvering, and the "Rocket Equation".

I tried to explain in more detail but it's too much for 500 characters!

[bassmanthreeoffour]

The CSM had the SIVB still attached to break earth gravity, escaping the moons gravity requires less power on a much smaller & lighter vehicle. The SIVB boosted the ship into a high elliptical orbit that happen to intercept the moon. On the way home the same applies. It took exactly the same amount of time to get there as it did to get back. As they reentered the atmosphere they were going the same speed as it took to leave earth orbit. Dude you need to read before posting stupid comments.

[NewDirection4us]

Sounds plausible I guess, but I really don't think it's true. Let me see if I got it right. We had a huge launch to get the rocket off from Florida and into space. Then as the spacecraft is orbiting the moon the moon lander deployed and landed on moon. Then later it lifts off and reconnects with the orbiting space craft which is going slow enough to allow this to happen. How did the space craft at that point have enough propulsion to speed it back to Earth in a timely manner? Sounds fishy to me!

[Gromitdog1]

Takes fuel to slow down, LEM detach from service module, descent, deceleration, gravity repulsion. I don't believe the official story either, keep in mind this is all with a perfectly balanced LEM, imagine holding a pencil from the bottom while slowing it down and watch it tip over. Any center of gravity imbalance on the LEM wouuld casuse it to spin in the direction of least resistance, fuel would be required to counteract this along with a sophisticated control system.

[tuttt99]

That's why it had attitude jets and a sophisticated feedback control system

[NewDirection4us]

Not much in the way of small manageable computer systems leading up to 1969.

[Frapazoid]

Yes there was!

You're both underestimating computers and overestimating the workload of vehicle control when you're not in a fluid.

Consider that the F-16 has a far, far more complicated flight module and must operate in air, but it's flight is entirely computer controlled and they managed this in the 1970s.

[kooldog98]

the command service module had fuel to enter and escape lunar orbit and to make mid-course corrections between the earth and the moon. once it leaves lunar orbit, earths gravity kicks in and brings it home, no propulsion is needed. the lunar module had a descent and ascent stage. the descent stage had enough fuel to land on the moon. you'll remember neil armstrong landed with 12 seconds of fuel left. the ascent stage also had enough propellant to launch into orbit

[NewDirection4us]

That sounds possible. Would make sense that gravity would do the job at some point. I wonder why the moon itself doesn't get drawn to Earth by the large planet's gravitational pull. Must be something in the moon's core to repell it against Earth's gravity. If you think about it, it's unbelievable that any planets or their moons, as well as the stars, can stay withing their orbits. It's like an invisible power controlling everything in the universe. Must be God, but that's ANOTHER story.

[kooldog98]

if you look at it this way, when a space craft goes into orbit it doesnt fall to earth because its falling around the earth faster, just like the moon is. the moon is alot further away so it takes longer to orbit the earth. all the planets are falling towards the sun but they are falling around it much faster so they never hit the suns surface. gravity certainly is mysterious

[NewDirection4us]

Yes, gravity is a mysterious force. Gravity pulls everything within it's range to the Earth. That still doesn't explain what makes the Earth turn, and continue to turn day after day, year after year at the exact same speed, never slowing down as a top or hila hoop would. I've asked atheists to explain it apart from it being God's power doing it but they can't answer it.

[TheGreatSparky]

Nothing slows down, because, (to paraphrase Newton's first law of motion) an object in motion will stay in motion, and an object at rest will stay at rest until a force acts upon it. On Earth, we do not see this often, because friction from the air or other objects slow things down. In space, moons can orbit planets undisturbed because there is almost not friction at all to stop them. This is all within the realm of understood physics.

[NewDirection4us]

Thanks Sparky, I got that. There has to be some force exerted on the object to get it going. The main control module had to slow down during orbit to allow the lander to reconnect and get the two astronauts back on board for the trip back to Earth. At a slow speed, the main unit would need substantial propulsion to get it back up to speed to get back, right. Can the command module unit even get propulsion in the vacuum of space to even get up to speed for the return trip?

[TheGreatSparky]

Actually, there was no need for the CM to slow down at all in order to dock with the LM. So long as they are both moving at the same velocity, no matter how fast that velocity is. While this might seem impossible, remember that the space shuttle docks with the International Space Station while traveling at about 27,500 kp/h.

[NewDirection4us]

Thats true. But that rickity looking lunar module didn't look like it was capable of getting up to very great speed. It would seem very difficult to redock at a substantial enough speed to get it back to Earth in a reasonable amount of time. Even if it was moving 1,000 MPH it would have taken 230,000 hours to get back to Earth. Earth's gravity wouldn't cause it to speed up any faster than that! So how did they get back here so fast? In days instead of months.

[bassmanthreeoffour]

WRONG...you have no idea what you are talking about. THE CSM DID NOT HAVE TO SLOW DOWN!!!!!! IF IT DID IT WOULD HAVE CRASHED INTO THE MOON BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT HAVE ENOUGH VELOCITY TO MAINTAIN A PERPETUAL FALL....OR ORBIT. WTF MAN!!! The CSM had a large engine attached at the rear. Plus, a rocket does not need air to push off of to move. Again Newton's law: For every action there is an = & opposite reaction...learned that in the 3rd grade as well.

[bassmanthreeoffour]

They believed the earth was hit by something long ago setting it in motion. One of the laws of physics is, objects in motion stay in motion unless another force is acts upon it. Objects at rest stay at rest unless something acts on it. We learned that in the 5th grade man. If you take a basket ball in space & spin it, it will spin at the same speed forever or until something acts on it. The earth is in space, there is no friction to slow it down. How old are you sir?

[Frapazoid]

No quite! Understand that orbits don't work in spite of gravity. In fact, they are a _direct result_ of gravity.

The misunderstanding is that things naturally fall in elliptical paths, not arcs.

It's against common sense because your common sense is based on a limited perspective.

e.g. If you throw a pen, it wants to follow an elliptical trajectory around the Earth. But the ground is in the way.

The faster it goes, the bigger the ellipse.

Throw it at 8 km/second, and it will miss the Earth.

[NewDirection4us]

It's plausible that gravity of competing planets and stars could create orbits, I suppose, BUT, gravity of other planets and such does NOT offer an explanation for what makes the Earth spin. Not only the Earth, but all of the planets, some in even different directions. Something must maintain even pressure or force on the Earth to keep it at a steady speed. I think the answer is that God started them all spinning at a precise speed and they maintain that speed.

[Frapazoid]

Earth falls in an elliptical path around the Sun. That's just how it works. This has nothing to do with God, except that if God made the universe recently, then obviously he's the one who put it there.

But he doesn't need to sit around and keep tapping the Earth to keep the spin up, or throw it around.

This is really, really basic, primitive stuff. This was understood by the 1600s and I don't think anyone has ever seen the idea as _competing_ with God.

What do you think Newton is famous for??

[NewDirection4us]

Making Fig Newtons? I disagree that the rotation of the Earth, and the orbit of the Earth around the sun, "has nothing to do with God" Thats like saying that Ford Motor Company has nothing to do with the Mustang or Thunderbird. God has something to do with everything, from the smallest atom to the largest star in the universe.

[NewDirection4us]

All of the fake moon landings were done during Nixon's term in office. Why did they quit going to the moon after just three years if they were soi successful? Why haven't we returned again in more recent decadfes now that the technolgy has gotten to a point where they couldn't fool most people. They've never had men to the moon and most researchrs know it. The best they can do is to do what the space shuttle does, or send unmanned missions to planets.

[kooldog98]

it was too expensive to continue the program and by apollo 13, moon missions became routine. the public lost interest and wondered if it was still worth the money and the risk. apollo 18-20 were canceled due to budget restraints. after the apollo program nasa had learned enough about the moon and began studying other planets in the solar system. the space shuttle was designed for low earth orbit and sending parts to the ISS. the space shuttle is not the pinnacle of human spaceflight

[NewDirection4us]

such poor lighting that I couldn't even see the feather. This doesn't prove anything. If they really went to the moon it seems to me they would have planned to take pictures of the Earth and other planets from that unique site. Why no pictures of Earth in their 5,000 pictures supposedly taken while they were there? We've heard all along the rumors that it was faked so maybe it was.

[kooldog98]

tell me one benefit in taking a picture of earth from the moon. and besides there a plenty from apollo 8 and 10

[Gromitdog1]

Let me get this straight, they traveled 240 000 miles to the moon, brought 3 cars, a golf club, feathers, hammers, both film and video cameras yet they never thought to take a telescope and view the galaxy unobstructed without the interference of an atmosphere? Nor did they take a skyward picture of the stars or perhaps Saturn? Think of what the planets would look like! Sometimes the stench of BS is too strong to pass off as egg salad as NASA would have you believe.

[kooldog98]

the hubble telescope can already take better pictures than any telescope they could take to the moon. planets would look the same from the moon as they would from earth. 250,000 miles isnt very far in space

[Gromitdog1]

Uhhhhhhhhh, lol. What can i say. Your too dumb to realise there is no atmosphere on the moon so jesus, no point arguing what effect no atmosphere would have on photos.

[kooldog98]

are you too dumb to realise the hubble telescope is beyond earths atmopshere?

[Gromitdog1]

Proven fact apollo believer nutters have low comprehension skills, proven true time and again.

[kooldog98]

taking something as big as the hubble telescope to the moon would be too heavy. a simple 70mm telescope would be useless. the objective of the apollo program was to study the moon, not the stars. lastly, the command service module pilots took plenty of skyward pictures of the stars to map their location from constellations. we never see them because they are as interesting as white dots on a black background. proven fact conspiracy theorists ridiculous claims proven wrong time and time again

[DNiranjan01]

most impresive is that Galileu predicted this almost 300 years before this test .

[noeatingallowed]

Fake. Fake fake fake. Hoax. B.S.

[timberman78]

:-) probably it is a fake set-up, and as appears from the other discussions here, it's not easy to give a final word about this, but then again, this video is not about being on the moon or not, it is just an education about a simple physics principle.

It may help you feel better about it if you consider it a clip from a star-trek episode.

[wspaceport]

noeatingallowed states:"Fake. Fake fake fake. Hoax. B.S."

Take a look at thisYT clip: watch?v=_XJcZ-KoL9o

Not good enough for you? Then click on "See More Video" in this "Lunar Lunacy" outtake:

dsc. discovery. com/ fansites/ mythbusters/ mythbusters. html

[dumbnetworks]

idiot

[globs89]

awesome

[AICorp]

Wow, why does every video about the moon landing turn into a conspiracy argument??

This video is demonstrating that all objects fall at the same rate of acceleration, not about the validity of the moon landing

[Aquarius1370]

It's just like the JFK issue, and now sadly 911. You get these "far left loons" as Bill O'Reilly calls them and they spend their days trying to prove that our government is in on everything. Now I know that the JFK issue is a touchy one, as I personally believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was too stupid to hit a moving target with a lazer acurate rifle, let alone a out dated bolt action Italian rifle with a broken scope.

[aust57]

To fake the Moon landings would take more than going to the Moon. No one can keep there mouth shut for this amount of time.

[NormanBatesIsMyMum]

I would really like to hear how the conspiracy theorists account for this

[coolstream1]

they are filming in a vacuum chamber

:)

[tuttt99]

That would be an awfully big vacuum chamber.

To pump all the air our would require an enormous amount of energy, not to mention how strong such a structure would have to be to hold back the atmosphere.

It's a lot easier to just go to the moon. Really.

[coolstream1]

I THINK my comment was some sort of joke... but I dont remember :P

[bassmanthreeoffour]

There is no vacuum chamber that large as the LM is 20 feet hight, plus when the camera pans out, the area they are standing is in huge. The largest vacuum chamber is the size of a small living room.

You guys kill me with your ignorance & stupid comments that only reveal how your closed minded you are to physics & science.

[NormanBatesIsMyMum]

@coolstream1 Then you must abandon the flag waving idea

[coolstream1]

@NormanBatesIsMyMum mechanical flag

[Forlo12345]

@NormanBatesIsMyMum the aliens did it! LOL!

[frogspore]

And by the way, I'm an American.  I didn't vote for George W(anker) Bush! and I can't wait for him to be gone out of office so people will quit saying how stupid Americans are on youtube!

[timberman78]

You expect to see all sorts of ideas, no matter how radical, on free-speech environments (e.g. the web).

People are people everywhere. there is the idiot and the genius, the conforming and the opposing in every culture. Generalizing an idea on a culture proves nothing but poor-sight.

And tell me about it; for I'm Arabic.

[frogspore]

It's amazing that the conspiracy theorists all shut up when they are invited to see a laser ray that they beam up to the surface of the moon and back. They are able to bounce it off of a mirror surface that the astronauts of one of the Apollo missions (I forgot which one) placed up there. They just don't want to see any sort of real evidence!

[timberman78]

frogspore, please remember that such a mirror can be easily deployed by an unmanned mission. The mirror idea is not a good evidence to use.

[frogspore]

timberman, I have some trouble with the idea of an unmanned mission at that time being able to accuarately place a mirror so that it could bounce back laser pulses. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think it would have taken some human manipulation once on the surface of the moon. With the technology nowadays, it's no problem to get RC stuff going on Mars, but things have come a long way.

[huts68]

Of course people will believe stupid things like

the Apollo missions were fake! They voted for George W. Bush didnt they?

[josealb2]

Are people never getting tired of the fucking conspiracy theories?... The landing on the moon was a great success for the american space career over the russian one, dont you think russians would have pointed it out if it was a fake?

[timberman78]

There are oppositions to every story.

to be frank, I myself have some doubts.

It's not about the space race. I don't care for that. but considering the kind of technology that was available at the time, it keeps my eyes rolling as how could they accomplish that with the limited technology available then (compared to now).

If you follow NASA's publications you'll get my point. SO MUCH has been learnt about the moon in the past 2 decades which grows doubt about the whole apollo missions thing.

[zeusis1]

Thanks for the reference links!

[timberman78]

You're welcome =)

[meppers]

soup, /b/

[AlecVCF]

Fucking ghey beep beep sounds at the end.

[obiwan122586]

Sure, it could have been easily faked on Earth, assuming your definition of "easy" involves making a huge vaccum room with somehow lighter gravity than the rest of the planet.

Also, I like the little happy hop the astronauts do after they find Galileo's findings correct.

[mason104]

Exactly. Funny comment, too~

[burnzorz]

wrong there is wind you fucking idiot, look at the flag in these landings, also if this is true why do the astronauts in some apollo films have wires going from their space suits perfectly straight up into NOTHING!!!

[johnpwnsyou]

they made the flags out of aluminum or some other metal, because if they had a cloth flag, it would just hang to the ground.

hence why the flag looks like it has wind upon it.

(They made them look that way!)

[WilliWauller]

Hopefully it works there too ^^