Strange Posted October 29, 2017 Posted October 29, 2017 44 minutes ago, John Cuthber said: Or that the ground isn't flat, but that's not as "exciting" so it gets overlooked. It is also trivial to find photos taken on Earth where shadows are not parallel. There is a thing called "perspective" that the OP (or wherever he copied the text from) seems not to know about. Or maybe it means that the Earth is a hoax.
reerer Posted October 30, 2017 Author Posted October 30, 2017 Someone is suggesting that I am not the author of these post; henceforth, I will demestate that I am in fact the author by deriving from skrech. 4 days 6 hours and 45 minutes-----earth to the moon 345,600sec---21,600--------2700 = 369,900 seconds total ______________________________________________________ distance to the moon ------ 363,104,000 m __________________________________________________ velocity of the craft---363,104,000 m divided by 369,900 s = 983 m/s ---------------------------------------------------- Apollo Command and Service Module weight Command Module weight and Service Module wet (14,690 kg) Lander wet---(16,400 kg) Total weight of craft---------> 31,090 kg. --------------------------------------------------------- Kinetic energy: .5 (31,090 kg) (983)^2 = 15,020,962,505 joules 42.8 MJ per kg----------42,000,000 J for a kg of kerosene rocket fuel. (15,020,962,505 joules) divided by 42,000,000 J to determine the amount of fuel to achieve velocity. 358 kg of kerosene. On 10/29/2017 at 3:48 AM, John Cuthber said: 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. I have calculated the effencicy of a rocket engine using the Saturn rocket at .5 % yet on the NASA site someone is posting that the effenccy is 70%!!!!!!!!!!!!!
J.C.MacSwell Posted October 30, 2017 Posted October 30, 2017 On 10/28/2017 at 6:46 PM, 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. I know. I was there in the studio when they set up the (hidden, they thought that was best) fan for the flag. I argued against it but they wouldn't listen. Some of these guys had PhD's in physics and Engineering...they were all about the "dramatic effect" they were all spouting. I was young at the time and who was I to argue against guys who had helped out Oswald just 6 years earlier.
swansont Posted October 31, 2017 Posted October 31, 2017 34 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said: I know. I was there in the studio when they set up the (hidden, they thought that was best) fan for the flag. I argued against it but they wouldn't listen. Some of these guys had PhD's in physics and Engineering...they were all about the "dramatic effect" they were all spouting. I was young at the time and who was I to argue against guys who had helped out Oswald just 6 years earlier. It was staged. But Aldrin and Armstrong were such perfectionists that they insisted it be shot on location. (Paraphrased from the internet somewhere) 1
Phi for All Posted October 31, 2017 Posted October 31, 2017 ! Moderator Note Question answered, thread closed. 1
Recommended Posts