What's wrong with lalalaLOLA

http://spacefellowship.com/news/art10894/apollo-landing-sites-pose-a-threat-t...

claw boys claw: russian spy and I

Don't mind the arrows on the photo's NASA made them

Category:

Comedy

Tags:

• What's
• wrong
• with
• lalalaLOLA

[GoneToPlaid]

Hi gijsshu, Where did you get those images from? Its quite possible that the LOLA data is merely being overlaid atop the Clementine maps in order to produce much more accurate altitude data. Also, LOLA must be turned off when passing over the three Apollo landing sites with laser reflectors since the return from the LRRRs could be strong enough to blow out the amplifier circuits in the LOLA's receiver.

[gijsshu]

@GoneToPlaid h ttp://lunar*gsfc*nasa*gov/lola­/index.html

And the article I refer to in the description states that the LOLA is turned of at ALL the US and Sowjet landingsites, not just the ones with the reflectors.

[Rob260259]

w w w . nasa . gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/sou­th_pole . html

.

w w w . theregister . co . uk/2009/09/18/nasa_early_lro_r­esults/

.

Thousands of visitors to the site. Scientists, engineers, geochemists, physicists, geologists, astronomers, graduated students, hobbyists, interested people and so on.

But... here are Gijs & Stalker. Telling us their 'facts'.

[BlisterHiker]

What a piece of garbage this video is!

LOLA (Lunar Orbiter Laser Altimeter) onboard the LRO, is not a digital camera. It takes precise measurements of lunar topography.

Secondary objective for LOLA is modeling lunar illumination environments. What you show here is a virtual model, a VISUALIZATION, built using data provided by LOLA.

LOLA is turned off when LRO passes over Apollo landing sites because of risk of damage to sensitive detector if laser hit one of the retroreflectors.

>

[gijsshu]

@kilox10001 I'll put it out anyway, justs like NASA does with their shit

[Rob260259]

@BlisterHiker

"What's wrong with those people?"

Not too much, BH. They just lack anything that comes near an understanding of Apollo and the talent and hard work that went into it. Accepting it would do unacceptable damage to their fragile egos, so they're forced to deny it at all costs. May be (just very may be) at some level they do know it was all real and that they can't win an argument based only on facts and logic. So it becomes all about insults, personalities and who-said-what.

[BlisterHiker]

@gijsshu

For the last time, it's about REFLECTED LASER BEAM.

I told you to compare how laser beam reflected off the wall compares to laser beam reflected off the mirror straight to your eyes, but you're too dumb to understand it.

That's EXACTLY the scenario NASA wants to avoid: hitting LOLA detector with strong laser beam reflected off the mirrors in retroreflectors.

It's perfectly logical, but you simply have no clue about engineering and precision of such systems, ignorant.

[BlisterHiker]

Really, stalkervision? Please elaborate.

In a few hours here I've seen that you:

1. Don't understand how retroreflectors work, claiming their 23 degrees angle would prevent laser beam from above to bounce back.

2. Do not understand what visualization means.

3. You have some problem with visualizations presented by NASA, but you can't actually prove what's wrong with them.

4. The best argument you have so far is "shadows"...

Get a life, "expert"...

[BlisterHiker]

@stalkervision

Please stop making ass of yourself. You don't even know what you're talking about. The very term you used "laser topography maps" makes it obvious.

This has nothing to do with technique used, in this case laser ranging.

What NASA showed here are just VISUALIZATIONS based on numeric data.

What problem do you see with that? Is the data wrong? Are the visualizations wrong? If you think so, PROVE IT or just shut up.

[gijsshu]

@BlisterHiker Ignorance and lazyness from your side for not checking facts???????