reerer Posted October 22, 2017 Posted October 22, 2017 The Apollo 11 lander did not land on the moon. In the descent of the Apollo 11 lunar lander, the lander begins to descent onto the surface of the moon and achieves a velocity of 550 mph at which point the lander's rocket engine is activated and produces a thrust of 10,000 lb until the lander nears the moon's surface at which time the thrust is reduced to 3,000 lb. At the moon surface, the lander's rocket engine's thrust would result in a blast zone and the accumulation of rocket smoke at the moon's surface caused by the push back of the rocket smoke from the moon's surface yet the lunar descent film does not depict rocket smoke. The lack of the moon's atmosphere is used to explain the non-existence of the exhaust rocket smoke that is prevalent in a rocket engine burn but the production of the rocket smoke is caused by the combustion of the Aerozine rocket fuel and the oxidizer (liquid oxygen) which would result in the formation of an enormous amount of rocket smoke during the lander descent which is not depicted in the lander descent film. -5
Strange Posted October 22, 2017 Posted October 22, 2017 Quote Was NASA Apollo 11 Fake? No. Obviously not. Here: http://www.clavius.org/techcrater.html
beecee Posted October 22, 2017 Posted October 22, 2017 The Apollo landings, all six of them were not faked. This among other conspiracies are ideas dreamed up by morons and nuts, that have an inane image of government cover ups and conspiracies. Not one iota of the fabricated/imagined proofs that these conspiracy nuts offer as evidence will stand up to any scientific scrutiny.
Strange Posted October 22, 2017 Posted October 22, 2017 (Unfortunately, the images on that site are not working at the moment, but the explanation should be clear, anyway.)
swansont Posted October 22, 2017 Posted October 22, 2017 Why would there be smoke? What chemical reaction is happening?
Janus Posted October 22, 2017 Posted October 22, 2017 These kinds of "proofs" that the Moon landings didn't happen always puzzle me. They always rely on the people trying to pull off the biggest hoax ever as being incompetent. "There are no stars in the sky in any of the pictures", " there's no dust on the landing pads", there's no smoke from the lander's rockets. If there should have been stars in the sky, they would have put stars in the pictures, if there should have been dust on the landing pads, they would have sprinkled some dust on them, and if the lander rockets should have produced smoke, they would have shown smoke in the footage. This wasn't a matter of fooling some people with a picture of a pie tin tossed in the air, they would have had to fool scientists the world round. No detail would have been overlooked. The simple fact is that we did go to the Moon. Trying to pull a hoax about it and getting caught would have much more damaging to the US standing in the world then actually making the attempt and failing. I never seen a reason for faking the Moon landings that outweighed the risk. 2
pzkpfw Posted October 22, 2017 Posted October 22, 2017 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Janus said: I never seen a reason for faking the Moon landings that outweighed the risk. Absolutely. With a major driver being the "space race", if going there had actually been impossible, rather than fake it and risk exposure, they'd have sat back and exposed the soviets fakery (if it occurred). That Mitchell and Webb Look - Moon Landing Sketch : Obligatory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw Edited October 22, 2017 by pzkpfw 2
John Cuthber Posted October 22, 2017 Posted October 22, 2017 8 hours ago, reerer said: At the moon surface, the lander's rocket engine's thrust would result in a blast zone and the accumulation of rocket smoke If smoke was produced- and rocket most engines run far too cleanly to produce much- how would it accumulate in a vacuum? All Reerer has done here is demonstrate that he doesn't know enough to form a reasoned opinion on the matter. That's nothing to be embarrassed about. I'd not be able to form a reasoned opinion about most sporting events. The difference is that I have more sense than to post nonsense on sport discussion sites. 1
Carrock Posted October 22, 2017 Posted October 22, 2017 11 hours ago, reerer said: The Apollo 11 lander did not land on the moon. In the descent of the Apollo 11 lunar lander, the lander begins to descent onto the surface of the moon and achieves a velocity of 550 mph at which point the lander's rocket engine is activated and produces a thrust of 10,000 lb until the lander nears the moon's surface at which time the thrust is reduced to 3,000 lb. At the moon surface, the lander's rocket engine's thrust would result in a blast zone and the accumulation of rocket smoke at the moon's surface caused by the push back of the rocket smoke from the moon's surface yet the lunar descent film does not depict rocket smoke. The lack of the moon's atmosphere is used to explain the non-existence of the exhaust rocket smoke that is prevalent in a rocket engine burn but the production of the rocket smoke is caused by the combustion of the Aerozine rocket fuel and the oxidizer (liquid oxygen) which would result in the formation of an enormous amount of rocket smoke during the lander descent which is not depicted in the lander descent film. With the basic bolded errors I'm not going to bother with anything that might require a few seconds thought.
John Cuthber Posted October 22, 2017 Posted October 22, 2017 This vid - showing the lack of smoke- is more intersting that the OP And it shows that rockets don't smoke
reerer Posted October 25, 2017 Author Posted October 25, 2017 (edited) What is the efficiency of a rocket engine? -----------> less than 1 %. Attempt to think about that before you reply. Also, your video does not show a complete picture past the flame. If you show the complete picture you will see a lot of smoke from a rocket engine since the efficiency of a rocket engine is In addition, the decent film of the lunar lander onto the surface of the moon shows the lander propagating in a horizontal direction which is not physically possible since this would require a thrust in the horizontal direction and a constant center of gravity which cannot be accomplished because of the enormous amount of fuel being consumed during the landing which would shift the center of gravity; also, the descent film depicts the Apollo astronaut casually having a conversation that is being recorded in the descent film but the enormous amount of rocket fuel being ignited would produce a roar which would prevent the audio feed of the Apollo conversation depicted in the Apollo 11 landing film. The landing and ascent of the Apollo 11 astronauts would be a life and death experience yet the lander film does not depict the intensity that would be expected in such a dangerous endeavor. Plus, the photographic images of the Apollo 11 lander does not depict a blast zone beneath the exhaust nozzle of the lander caused by the 3,000 lb rocket thrust during the final descent. The argument that the 3,000 lb thrust is not significant enough to produce a blast zone beneath the lander is used to justify the non-existence of the blast zone yet a Lear jet engine is rated at 3,500 lb thrust; consequently, the 3,000 lb rocket thrust would result in a blast zone beneath the Apollo 11 lunar lander yet the Apollo 11 photographs (fig 23) shows absolutely no disturbance of the fine particle matter in the area beneath the lunar lander. Edited October 25, 2017 by reerer -3
MigL Posted October 25, 2017 Posted October 25, 2017 I told them to use a steam engine ( usually about 40 % with theoretical 63 % max efficiency, IIRC ), but they wouldn't listen to me. Seriously, propulsion efficiency is maximized when the exhausting mass has the same, but opposite, velocity as the vehicle. A rocket with extremely high exhaust velocity is very inefficient at low speed, but the best option to achieve escape velocity from the Earth. At subsonic speeds a propeller is way more efficient. Unfortunately, a propeller won't work on the moon. 1
beecee Posted October 25, 2017 Posted October 25, 2017 3 hours ago, reerer said: The landing and ascent of the Apollo 11 astronauts would be a life and death experience yet the lander film does not depict the intensity that would be expected in such a dangerous endeavor. Ignoring the rest of your obvious fairy tale rhetoric, the above needs commenting on. The Apollo Astronauts are highly trained individuals, that have been trained in most any possible situation that could have arisen. The Apollo XIII Astronauts for example handled there own "life and death"experience with calmness and thought....Armstrong handled at least two other "life threatening" scenarios with the same calmness and thought, one being Gemini VIII when the capsule was undergoing an uncontrollable yaw and pitching upon docking, and eventually brought under control by use of the thrusters,and ended with the mission being cancelled. Armstrong was also involved in another incident with what was known as the flying bedstead, (or lunar landing craft) and was forced to parachute with seconds to spare. Your obvious ignorance also extends to the fact that the Apollo XI had also a possible "life and death" situation when the Eagle was trying to touch down in a safe, relatively smooth area, and with only seconds of fuel left. Finally no matter how many times you chose to spread your nonsense re this supposed conspiracy, it will never change the truth, that we certainly did make six successful landings on the Moon. You really need to live with that fact and the fact that all the fabricated false reasons you and others like giving to suggest any conspiracy has been all explained away . 1
reerer Posted October 26, 2017 Author Posted October 26, 2017 In the Apollo 11 photographs, the shadows of the lunar objects are pointing in different directions which suggest that the Apollo 11 photographs were manipulated. The variation in the contour of the lunar surface is used to explain the multiple directions of the lunar shadows but in another Apollo 11 photograph taken on the surface of the moon, the objects are located on a near level lunar surface and are forming shadows in different directions which negates the contour surface argument. In another argument, the earth's intensity is used to represents a second light source that forms the multiple directional lunar shadows but if the light intensities of the Sun and the Earth formed the lunar shadows then each lunar object would form two separate shadows yet each of the lunar objects, on a relativity flat surface, are forming a single shadow pointing in different directions which proves the Apollo 11 photographs with the multiple directional lunar shadows were manipulated. There would have been no question regarding the Apollo 11 lunar landing, if NASA left a radio beacon on the surface of the moon and independent sources could verify the origin of the radio signal but a radio signal that originates from the moon cannot be detected on the earth because the intensity of a radio signal is dependent on the inverse of the second order of the distance I = K/r2 . After propagating the distance of 50,000 miles (r = 8 x 107 m) from the moon a radio signal would diminish by a factor of 10-14, the strongest radio signal produced on the surface of the moon would be less than the intensity of a cell phone after propagating a distance of 50,000 miles and at 100,000 miles from the moon, the radio signal would disappear yet the moon is located 238,000 miles from the earth which would result in a decrease in the intensity of a factor of (I = 10-16) that produces serious doubts regarding all of NASA's ostensible stellar space missions. It is questionable how NASA communicated with the Apollo missions (at the moon), voyager, and Mars probe using radio waves. -2
Eise Posted October 26, 2017 Posted October 26, 2017 3 hours ago, reerer said: There would have been no question regarding the Apollo 11 lunar landing, if NASA left a radio beacon on the surface of the moon and independent sources could verify the origin of the radio signal but a radio signal that originates from the moon cannot be detected on the earth because the intensity of a radio signal is dependent on the inverse of the second order of the distance From here: Quote The Passive Seismic Experiment detected lunar "moonquakes" and provided information about the internal structure of the Moon. The Passive Seismic Experiment This experiment studied the propagation of seismic waves through the Moon and provided our most detailed look at the Moon's internal structure. The Apollo 11 seismometer returned data for just three weeks but provided a useful first look at lunar seismology. More advanced seismometers were deployed at the Apollo 12, 14, 15, and 16 landing sites and transmitted data to Earth until September 1977. Each of these seismometers measured all three components of ground displacement (up-down, north-south, and east-west). Bold by me. And the reflectors still 'work'. BTW I noticed you are arguing about science everywhere: about Maxwell's equations, quantum physics. How do you explain that all technology based on these works? What is the source of your extreme skepticism? 1
beecee Posted October 26, 2017 Posted October 26, 2017 3 hours ago, reerer said: Not sure who you are trying to convince, other then yourself. The only real effect you are having on normal intelligent people is a giggle or belly laugh at how inanely stupid your fabricated nonsense is. Or is this just some sort of childish immature game that you are conducting to get a raise out of people?
swansont Posted October 26, 2017 Posted October 26, 2017 9 hours ago, reerer said: a radio signal that originates from the moon cannot be detected on the earth because the intensity of a radio signal is dependent on the inverse of the second order of the distance I = K/r2 . True only for a point source/omnidirectional emission. Not true for e.g. a parabolic dish.
John Cuthber Posted October 26, 2017 Posted October 26, 2017 14 hours ago, reerer said: if NASA left a radio beacon on the surface of the moon and independent sources could verify the origin of the radio signal but a radio signal that originates from the moon cannot be detected on the earth because the intensity of a radio signal is dependent on the inverse of the second order of the distance I = K/r2 . After propagating the distance of 50,000 miles (r = 8 x 107 m) from the moon a radio signal would diminish by a factor of 10-14, the strongest radio signal produced on the surface of the moon would be less than the intensity of a cell phone after propagating a distance of 50,000 miles and at 100,000 miles from the moon, the radio signal would disappear yet the moon is located 238,000 miles from the earth which would result in a decrease in the intensity of a factor of (I = 10-16) that produces serious doubts regarding all of NASA's ostensible stellar space missions. It is questionable how NASA communicated with the Apollo missions (at the moon), voyager, and Mars probe using radio waves. OK, two things, firstly you haven't got the hang of the inverse square law. I'm going to invent a unit- Called the "thingy" It's the circumference of the Earth (about 25000 miles). By your logic, after travelling from the moon a signal will have travelled roughly 10 thingies and will therefore be attenuated 10*10, i.e 100 times. Monitoring a signal that's only been reduced a hundredfold shouldn't be a problem. On the other hand, if I measure he distance in metres it's about 384 million of them, so the attenuation must be about 10^17 fold. When you work out what's wrong with that, you will see what's wrong with your post. Then there's this bit "if NASA left a radio beacon on the surface of the moon and independent sources could verify the origin of the radio signal but a radio signal that originates from the moon cannot be detected on the earth" Well, for a while, NASA did leave a signal source there because, while they were there, they sent back signals. The Russians received them. If they hadn't, there would have been hell to pay. And, finally, your idea that the inverse square law means you can't get a signal here from the moon is just silly. The light scattered by the moon follows the inverse square law. You can see the moon. The inverse square law doesn't stop signals reaching us from the moon.
Strange Posted October 26, 2017 Posted October 26, 2017 18 minutes ago, John Cuthber said: And, finally, your idea that the inverse square law means you can't get a signal here from the moon is just silly. The light scattered by the moon follows the inverse square law. You can see the moon. The inverse square law doesn't stop signals reaching us from the moon. Bazinga. Also, we can receive signals from Mars which is much further away. But maybe the OP thinks those are faked as well.
John Cuthber Posted October 26, 2017 Posted October 26, 2017 8 minutes ago, Strange said: Also, we can receive signals from Mars which is much further away. But maybe the OP thinks those are faked as well. Perhaps the word "thinks" in that sentence should have quote marks. 1
reerer Posted October 26, 2017 Author Posted October 26, 2017 True only for a point source/omnidirectional emission. Not true for e.g. a parabolic dish. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Really, what is the dispersion rate of a radio wave after leaving the parabolic dish?
reerer Posted October 28, 2017 Author Posted October 28, 2017 (edited) Furthermore, in a film of an Apollo astronaut walking on the surface of the moon shows the placement of the American flag on the surface of the moon but in the film, the flag appears to be flapping similar to a flag blowing in the wind yet the surface of the moon has no atmosphere that could form the waving of the flag with the intensity depicted in the Apollo 11 film. It is argued that the vibration of the flag created by the astronauts placing the flag onto the moon causes the flag to wave but the intensity of the wave suggest that the flag was flapping on the surface of the earth in a studio that was staging the lunar landing which also corresponds with indiscretions of astronomy where extremely expensive land based telescopes are constructed after the Hubble. The Apollo 11 mission did not land on the moon since the lunar lander does not contain the minimum amount of rocket fuel required in descending the lander onto the surface of the moon using a descent rocket re-entry. Using an approximation, the amount of fuel required to launch a payload from the surface of the earth into the earth's orbit is approximately equal to the amount of fuel required in descending the same payload onto the surface of the earth from the earth's orbit using a descent rocket re-entry based on the potential and kinetic energies; consequently, the amount of fuel required to descent a payload from the moon's orbit to the surface of the moon can be calculated using an earth base rocket launch by compensating for the moon's gravity. The total weight of the Apollo 11 lunar lander (dry) is 15,083 lb. Using the moon gravity of .166 g the lunar lander weight would be comparable to (15,083 lb) x (.166) = 2,504 lb on the surface of the moon; consequently, to decent the lander onto the surface of the moon would be comparable to launching a 2,504 lb payload from the surface of the earth into the earth's orbit. The Taep'o-dong 2 rocket has a maximum payload weight of 1,000 lbs and uses 114,913 lb of liquid rocket fuel which forms a fuel-payload ratio of R = (114,913 lb) / (1,000 lb) = 115. Using the fuel-payload ratio R, the minimum amount of rocket fuel required to launch a 2,504 lb payload into the earth's orbit is (2,504 lb) x R = 287,960 lb; consequently, to descent the 15,083 lb lander (moon weight of 2,504 lb) onto the surface of the moon using descent rockets requires approximately 287,960 lb of fuel yet the total amount of fuel used in the lander descent is 18,000 lb. Furthermore, in the ascent stage of the lunar mission where the ascent module is launch from the surface of the moon back into the moon's orbit requires fuel. The mass of the accent module is 4,740 lb (dry) which represents a moon weight of (4,740 lb) x (.166) = 790 lbs. To ascend a moon weight 790 payload from the surface of the moon back into the moon orbit would require (790 lb) x R = 90,850 lb of fuel which would be part of the payload weight of the lunar lander. Recalculating the lander's descent using an additional 90,850 lb of rocket fuel of the ascent module as part of the descent payload; the total decent payload weight of the lunar descent would be 100,373 lb that moon weight would be equivalent to (100,373 lb) x (.166) = 11,643 lbs; consequently, the descent of the lander would require (11,643) x R = 1,338,975 lbs of rocket fuel yet the total fuel stated by NASA used in the descent of the lander is 18,000 lb; consequently, it is not physically possible to land on the surface of the moon using a rocket reentry or free fall since the moon lacks an atmosphere that would facilitate in the landing where in an earth descent the earth's atmosphere acts as a liquid that slows down the reentry velocity during the descent and for the space shuttle the tiles and wings slow the descent based on the earth's atmosphere. In a moon landing, the space shuttle would not function. I am presently calculating the fuel load required to de-accelerate the command module at the moon and reaccelerate the service module back to the moon and I been looking for the effecicency of a rocket engine that NASA is concealing but because of you guys I was insiparied re to develop a new method by using the Saturn rocket and the kinetic energy. Thank so much for the inspirational value of the discussion. Are my calculation at the beginning corrert? Edited October 28, 2017 by reerer -1
rangerx Posted October 29, 2017 Posted October 29, 2017 4 hours ago, reerer said: Furthermore, in a film of an Apollo astronaut walking on the surface of the moon shows the placement of the American flag on the surface of the moon but in the film, the flag appears to be flapping similar to a flag blowing in the wind yet the surface of the moon has no atmosphere that could form the waving of the flag with the intensity depicted in the Apollo 11 film. It is argued that the vibration of the flag created by the astronauts placing the flag onto the moon causes the flag to wave but the intensity of the wave suggest that the flag was flapping on the surface of the earth in a studio that was staging the lunar landing which also corresponds with indiscretions of astronomy where extremely expensive land based telescopes are constructed after the Hubble. There's no air on the moon, so in the absence of drag any hanging object will swing like a pendulum for a very long time.
pzkpfw Posted October 29, 2017 Posted October 29, 2017 There's film from one mission (16? I forget) where an astronaut walks close to the flag and it does move a little - towards him, thought to be the effect of static electricity. In air, the strength of that wouldn't have been enough to move the flag. And of course all the other movement near the flag where it doesn't move at all, is another good indication of the lack of air. This stuff ("but the intensity of the wave suggest that the flag was flapping on the surface of the earth in a studio that was staging the lunar landing") is just baseless assertion. Go make a fake landing studio, try to replicate the films! It's not rocket science ...
John Cuthber Posted October 29, 2017 Posted October 29, 2017 On 10/26/2017 at 4:42 AM, reerer said: In the Apollo 11 photographs, the shadows of the lunar objects are pointing in different directions which suggest that the Apollo 11 photographs were manipulated. Or that the ground isn't flat, but that's not as "exciting" so it gets overlooked. Nobody has said that rockets are "efficient" at anything except burning stuff. Given the temperature of the gases as they leave the rocket, it's pretty clear that they do burn stuff well. 13 hours ago, reerer said: NASA is concealing... The "efficiency" of rockets for space flight etc is measured in terms of the "specific impulse". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_impulse It is silly to claim that "NASA is concealing" it when you can find it on WIKI.
Recommended Posts