Uh-oh. Here are a few more Voron moon hoax arguments that we didn't cover. (Did anyone notice what happens when you replace the V with an M.....)
Quote:
Was the "Moon craft" similar to Space Shuttle, the only spacecraft able to return after it is launched into the space (if we don't take in account the Russian Buran, which doesn't fly nowadays because of financial problems)? But Shuttle lands with the use of its wings, it flies similarly to an aircraft when landing. How could the "Moon craft" land in the airless lunar atmosphere, as wings would not be of help here because of absence of air?
|
His sentence makes little sense. He has no idea why spacecraft are specialized for certain tasks, apparently. The LM was not, in fact, reusable. The Shuttle lands using its wings. The LM landed on the Moon using the DPS rocket engine. Simple as that. I can't think of much to say, because this statement is so illogical.
Quote:
|
And if it was possible to create such a craft, then this means that a better technology than the Space Shuttle could be created. Then why so much money was spent to create the Space Shuttle?
|
The LM could not be used for cargo, for landing on Earth, or be reused. His English seems to be quite poor.
Quote:
|
To take off, the spacecraft, both modern and of those times (60-70s), needs a carrier rocket weighing many tons, yet more tons of fuel for it, and a powerful space-vehicle launching site.
|
Debunked already. Laughable, though.
Quote:
|
We certainly can take into account that a rocket able to launch a spacecraft from the Moon should have the power of about 36 times less than here on Earth -- as the Moon’s gravity is 6 times smaller and the thrust needed will decrease 36 times if antigravity force is 6 times less,
|
WHAT? IS HE INSANE?
This guy has a really firm grasp of orbital mechanics. He seems to think that the mass of a vehicle required to launch into orbit is a simple matter of arithmetic based on the amount of gravity.
Quote:
|
Parameters of carrier rocket Ariane-5 are provided above only as an example, this rocket is not able to launch a spacecraft into outer space
|
Then why do we have it? How did the Cluster spacecraft reach orbit?
Quote:
|
If even we suppose that several carrier rockets like "Columbia" could deliver all this to the Moon in several lunar modules (seems this should have been a very hard task for such modules to land on the Moon since the Moon has no atmosphere, which diminishes the speed of similar modules when these land on the Earth)
|
The LM couldn't land on Earth. The larger amount of gravity far outweighs any benefit you might get by utilizing air resistance.
Quote:
|
And if somehow no launching site construction was still required to take off from the Moon, why are there no photographs or videos of the spacecraft taking off from it?
|
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17v.launch.mov
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17ascent.jpg
Quote:
|
Wasn't it impossible to take photograph/videos of the spacecraft taking off from the Moon, from "Columbia" rocket?
|
Yes. But not from the magical device we call the LRV.
Quote:
|
Did the NASA astronauts return to "Columbia", "which remained in lunar orbit", using the rope that was hanging out of it?
|
My favorite Voron phrase.
Quote:
|
Or maybe NASA astronauts still visited the Moon (in the antigrav) and videoed/photoed all what is claimed to be lunar videos and photos,
|
Yep. The antigravs.