Are you claiming that the Apollo astronauts specifically practiced changing camera film and lenses inside a pressurized spacesuit surrounded by a vacuum? If so, please show us the evidence.
Quoting: Skeptic the First 716362
I did not. For all I know, they did.
But we were talking about whether it was possible to figure out how a ROCKET behaves in a vacuum.
You've gone past straw men...now you are building your opponents out of wet tissue paper. Why don't you try addressing what I actually say for once?
And as for the rocket...I talked it over with a scientifically-minded friend, and they reminded me that Newton's Laws of Motion were worked out with no more complex tool than a Billiards Table.
The only experts in hydrogen bomb explosions work for a few countries' militaries, and they are not allowed to speak freely. Nor would they want to--they have drunk the Kool-Aid.
There are no indisputable experts in lunar geology, because we have no indisputable lunar samples to study. Surely you don't believe the circular argument that experts acquired their expertise by studying Apollo's "moon rocks," and those "moon rocks" are authentic lunar samples because the experts say so?
Quoting: Skeptic the First 716362
No, that's foolish.
Again, you seem to assume that geology involves nothing more than sorting rocks. PLEASE, read a little on basic geology, until you can understand that geologists study processes that leave evidence.
You are still characterizing the study of Apollo samples as restricted to, "I never saw a rock like this before; it must be from the Moon or something!"
The simplest way I can put it is that the lunar samples are convincing because they describe a consistent narrative of non-terrestrial conditions.
How the lunar samples differ from terrestrial samples, or even lunites, has been well enough described so even a non-geologist like me can understand it. So I understand how geologists won't even treat the idea that they might be misled seriously; their reaction is about what you'd get if you asked an MD if she ever mistook a distal phalange for a pancreas.
The point being, you can't divorce one science from the rest of science, and make up crap in it.
Of course you can, and scientists do it all the time.
If funders demand (openly or by implication) that a research study stay away from a forbidden conclusion (e.g., "this rock did not come from the moon"), you can bet that the final research paper will not come to the forbidden conclusion. If necessary, the paper will make up any kind of nonsense in order to avoid the obvious. And similarly, reviewers and other researchers will avoid criticism of the nonsense, because they are equally reliant on the same funding sources.
No engineer or scientist wants to ruin his career by seriously angering The Powers That Be (unless he has a different faction of TPTB on his own side). Many will agree to participate in the deception, and those that don't will remain silent.
More recent examples of such academic prostitution are a research paper claiming that acid rain can cause a steel skyscraper to melt (literally!) to the ground within 10 seconds, and a paper claiming that high tritium levels at a disaster site are due to excessive wearing of wristwatches.
Quoting: Skeptic the First 716362
You just thought of this? Try reading a book or taking a class on ethics in science. Every major university has them. Try reading any of the science blogs around; they all talk about the constant challenge to stay honest.
Science is largely about staying honest. It's a key part of the method. If you aren't honest with yourself, you make stupid mistakes. If you aren't honest with your peers, you get found out and you get blacklisted -- when someone else tries to repeat your experiment, say.
But, please, read some of the narrative. This is a recognized problem and an ongoing struggle. So far, science is doing pretty good, but the pressures are always there and must be recognized as part of the challenge of doing good science.
But, as usual, you take part of my statement and race off in another direction with it. The point I was making is you can't create or use a science in isolation.
You CAN falsify test reports, as I admitted quite openly above. What you CAN'T get away with is falsifying test results in such a way as to describe a world with different physical laws. What you falsify, has to be internally consistent with all that science that ISN'T being falsified.
Take, say, cislunar radiation. What you CAN'T do is take some huge flux and make up test results and lab reports that say, "Oh, we exposed rats to such-and-such a level of radiation and they were okay." No, sorry -- other labs are also exposing rats to the same levels of radiation, and they are going to get different results.
Same if you say, "We put 1 mm of lead around the rats and they were just fine." Well, every physics grad student (and the majority of the undergrads as well) in the world can do the calculation, and show that 1 mm of lead would do less than nothing.
The place where you CAN lie is how much radiation is in a particular environment no-one else has access to.
This was my point about vacuum. Vacuum is in the lab, in the classroom, in industry. It's a science kit, or a hardware store, away. You can't make up shit about the behavior of known materials in vacuum. It doesn't matter how many big-name scientists you have sign the lab report, how shining the lab, how much GM or NASA or whatever paid you to fake it, when a junior college science class can prove you wrong.
But that is still considering elements in isolation. As if "radiation" or "vacuum" was a thing, a Platonic Ideal, something set of facts arrived at in isolation and dealt with in isolation.
We understand radiation because we understand subatomic particles and the atomic structure. Beta radiation IS electrons. Alpha particles ARE helium nuclei. If we didn't didn't understand electrons, we wouldn't have electronic circuits. Gamma is in the electromagnetic spectrum; it is high-energy photons. We work with optics, we work with light. You can't make arbitrary changes to how gamma is propagated without changing how x-ray machines and camera lenses work. It goes like this, up and down, each science connecting to another science in a great web. You can't make a large change in the predicted results of one field without a ripple across a dozen other fields.
Not, at least, at the level Apollo Hoax believers require. To make it impossible for a rocket motor to work in vacuum? Well...let me just say it would change so much physical science you'd not even be able to play a good game of Pool.
Of course I am...distance isn't distance...it's something entirely different...when you
measured it out the special NASA way...
when we earthlings leave our gravitational field a magnetic warp takes place and folds distance into another dimension so that even though astronauts on the Apollo missions were traveling 385,000 miles up to the moon it seemed to them as if they were traveling to a simulation studio in Virginia..in fact you can even calculate these warps and wormholes into the equations.
Outer space is very magical in that way...it also causes stars to disappear and not show up on any photos taken during these amazing trips...
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 717725
How old are you? Have you ever attended a place called school?
You continue to spout Sci-Fi based BS and can't even be bothered to get your figures correct.
The moon is 238,000 MILES away from Earth. I assume you get the 385,000 number by using the value in KILOMETRES.
As for "disappearing" stars in space photos, this is due to exposure times of the image, which are set to capture the subject of the frame. This effect is not magical or confined to space, but is easily reproduced on Earth with any camera. Go out at night and try and get a photo of your car (or tri-cycle in your case)whilst lit-up by a lampost (equivalent to the sun). Now show me the stars on it...
I am not surprised you want to stay anonymous when you display the "level" of intellect of an 8 year old.
Last Edited by Chasm on 7/4/2009 at 5:29 PM In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - George Orwell
How the lunar samples differ from terrestrial samples, or even lunites, has been well enough described so even a non-geologist like me can understand it.
Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 711198
Baloney.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
---
Regardless, [NASA scientist] O'Keefe said that "If [lunar sample] 14425 was found in Antarctica instead of Fra Mauro (on the Moon), it would probably have been accepted as a tektite."
---
And yet, oddly enough, this was advanced by someone who believes tektites are from the moon.
Look, please confine your Gish Gallop to a smaller number of subjects. I don't want to chase you all over geology too. It isn't my subject (although I know a hell of a lot more about it than you do.)
Skeptic the First User ID: 718302 7/4/2009 10:40 PM
Look, please confine your Gish Gallop to a smaller number of subjects. I don't want to chase you all over geology too.
You do not have the luxury of closing off debate on a subject that you yourself brought up. You brought up the "evidence" of "moon rocks."
Quoting: Skeptic the First 718302
I don't think so. I might have mentioned it in passing.
I do not get into the business of trying to provide "proofs" for Apollo. It's a fool's game. There is always some possible way in which the proof might mean something different.
Instead I rely on preponderance of evidence.
But for the most part, I'm content not in any futile attempt to show that Apollo was real, but in the much more satisfying effort of showing that the golden bullets of the Hoax Believers are all painted plastic.
So...okay, if you want to talk moon rocks, yeah, I can think of twenty ways to claim they are meaningless, all without breaking a sweat. Whether any of my ideas hold water is another question entirely.
But that's the point. It's EASY to come up with ideas of why something isn't so. It takes time to explain why any of those schemes wouldn't work. And by the time you finish, the hoax believer has another one ready.
There will never be ultimate proof. That's a basic concept of science. Best we can do is show that something hasn't been falsified yet.
But you know nothing about geology. I know just a little. So not only could we go around this particular merry-go-round endlessly, with you coming up with dubious ways to fake rocks and me explaining why I don't think that would work, we'd both be wrong as often as we were right.
Well, at least I'd learn a little during the exchange. I'd be reading the geology texts I have lying around. But it's about as sensible as both of us having a long drawn out argument about the loss of the scribal e in English literature. Best to stick to something we have a better chance of making sense about.
Anonymous Coward User ID: 717673 7/5/2009 12:11 AM
Of course I am...distance isn't distance...it's something entirely different...when you
measured it out the special NASA way...
when we earthlings leave our gravitational field a magnetic warp takes place and folds distance into another dimension so that even though astronauts on the Apollo missions were traveling 385,000 miles up to the moon it seemed to them as if they were traveling to a simulation studio in Virginia..in fact you can even calculate these warps and wormholes into the equations.
Outer space is very magical in that way...it also causes stars to disappear and not show up on any photos taken during these amazing trips...
How old are you? Have you ever attended a place called school?
You continue to spout Sci-Fi based BS and can't even be bothered to get your figures correct.
The moon is 238,000 MILES away from Earth. I assume you get the 385,000 number by using the value in KILOMETRES.
As for "disappearing" stars in space photos, this is due to exposure times of the image, which are set to capture the subject of the frame. This effect is not magical or confined to space, but is easily reproduced on Earth with any camera. Go out at night and try and get a photo of your car (or tri-cycle in your case)whilst lit-up by a lampost (equivalent to the sun). Now show me the stars on it...
I am not surprised you want to stay anonymous when you display the "level" of intellect of an 8 year old.
Quoting: Chasm
yessiree mr. sciencejock genius...no stars visible from the moon and no dust on the lem.
no crater under it neither...and no way to explain all those footprints in the thick soft dust around it-- dust that remained undisturbed from the blast force that must have modulated the effects of gravity as descended by exerting enormous pressure and heat...well well...what have we here?
alrightee then. Mr. Nasa Supermind... Someone who cannot calculate even a decent proximity of a percentage point when talking in terms of sums involving multiples of 1000 as in
Moon over 200,000 miles from earth
Van Allen belts 1,000.
No successful manned missions have passed beyond that point.
EXCEPT these fabulous Apollo journeys into space
where heavy crafts descend weightlessly onto thick dust while not disturbing it
while "moon" rovers zip about and shoot huge arcs of dust that fall in sharp patterns....patterns that only would happen in an atmosphere such as earth's...
Please please, mr. genius, tell us how they invented the incredible melt resistant film in the magic heat proof camera that functions great with no insulation at temperatures over 200 F.
Oh, I forgot....Cameras can't get hot in the sun on the moon.
Only the moon can get hot...
alrighteeeeeeeeeeeeee.
If school taught you all that....save us from schools...
Of course I am...distance isn't distance...it's something entirely different...when you
measured it out the special NASA way...
when we earthlings leave our gravitational field a magnetic warp takes place and folds distance into another dimension so that even though astronauts on the Apollo missions were traveling 385,000 miles up to the moon it seemed to them as if they were traveling to a simulation studio in Virginia..in fact you can even calculate these warps and wormholes into the equations.
Outer space is very magical in that way...it also causes stars to disappear and not show up on any photos taken during these amazing trips...
How old are you? Have you ever attended a place called school?
You continue to spout Sci-Fi based BS and can't even be bothered to get your figures correct.
The moon is 238,000 MILES away from Earth. I assume you get the 385,000 number by using the value in KILOMETRES.
As for "disappearing" stars in space photos, this is due to exposure times of the image, which are set to capture the subject of the frame. This effect is not magical or confined to space, but is easily reproduced on Earth with any camera. Go out at night and try and get a photo of your car (or tri-cycle in your case)whilst lit-up by a lampost (equivalent to the sun). Now show me the stars on it...
I am not surprised you want to stay anonymous when you display the "level" of intellect of an 8 year old.
yessiree mr. sciencejock genius...no stars visible from the moon and no dust on the lem.
no crater under it neither...and no way to explain all those footprints in the thick soft dust around it-- dust that remained undisturbed from the blast force that must have modulated the effects of gravity as descended by exerting enormous pressure and heat...well well...what have we here?
alrightee then. Mr. Nasa Supermind... Someone who cannot calculate even a decent proximity of a percentage point when talking in terms of sums involving multiples of 1000 as in
Moon over 200,000 miles from earth
Van Allen belts 1,000.
No successful manned missions have passed beyond that point.
EXCEPT these fabulous Apollo journeys into space
where heavy crafts descend weightlessly onto thick dust while not disturbing it
while "moon" rovers zip about and shoot huge arcs of dust that fall in sharp patterns....patterns that only would happen in an atmosphere such as earth's...
Please please, mr. genius, tell us how they invented the incredible melt resistant film in the magic heat proof camera that functions great with no insulation at temperatures over 200 F.
Oh, I forgot....Cameras can't get hot in the sun on the moon.
Only the moon can get hot...
alrighteeeeeeeeeeeeee.
If school taught you all that....save us from schools...
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 718127
Nice one on the Cameras...The Hasselblads were stripped of any excess weight,Then painted white to in an attempt to reflect away the sunlight.What about the no tracks under the Rovers wheels?just like no crater under the Landers.Hmmmmmmmm..the Nots and rovers are covered with Dust,but not the Landers,feet?Anybody with half a mind can see something very wrong with these pics.
Painted white in an attempt? You think the color and reflective index of an object has nothing to do with how much radiant heat it absorbs? Seriously, dude...this isn't even first-year optics. This is something most people figure out the first hot summer they go through.
Of course I am...distance isn't distance...it's something entirely different...when you
measured it out the special NASA way...
when we earthlings leave our gravitational field a magnetic warp takes place and folds distance into another dimension so that even though astronauts on the Apollo missions were traveling 385,000 miles up to the moon it seemed to them as if they were traveling to a simulation studio in Virginia..in fact you can even calculate these warps and wormholes into the equations.
Outer space is very magical in that way...it also causes stars to disappear and not show up on any photos taken during these amazing trips...
How old are you? Have you ever attended a place called school?
You continue to spout Sci-Fi based BS and can't even be bothered to get your figures correct.
The moon is 238,000 MILES away from Earth. I assume you get the 385,000 number by using the value in KILOMETRES.
As for "disappearing" stars in space photos, this is due to exposure times of the image, which are set to capture the subject of the frame. This effect is not magical or confined to space, but is easily reproduced on Earth with any camera. Go out at night and try and get a photo of your car (or tri-cycle in your case)whilst lit-up by a lampost (equivalent to the sun). Now show me the stars on it...
I am not surprised you want to stay anonymous when you display the "level" of intellect of an 8 year old.
yessiree mr. sciencejock genius...no stars visible from the moon and no dust on the lem.
no crater under it neither...and no way to explain all those footprints in the thick soft dust around it-- dust that remained undisturbed from the blast force that must have modulated the effects of gravity as descended by exerting enormous pressure and heat...well well...what have we here?
alrightee then. Mr. Nasa Supermind... Someone who cannot calculate even a decent proximity of a percentage point when talking in terms of sums involving multiples of 1000 as in
Moon over 200,000 miles from earth
Van Allen belts 1,000.
No successful manned missions have passed beyond that point.
EXCEPT these fabulous Apollo journeys into space
where heavy crafts descend weightlessly onto thick dust while not disturbing it
while "moon" rovers zip about and shoot huge arcs of dust that fall in sharp patterns....patterns that only would happen in an atmosphere such as earth's...
Please please, mr. genius, tell us how they invented the incredible melt resistant film in the magic heat proof camera that functions great with no insulation at temperatures over 200 F.
Oh, I forgot....Cameras can't get hot in the sun on the moon.
Only the moon can get hot...
alrighteeeeeeeeeeeeee.
If school taught you all that....save us from schools...
Nice one on the Cameras...The Hasselblads were stripped of any excess weight,Then painted white to in an attempt to reflect away the sunlight.What about the no tracks under the Rovers wheels?just like no crater under the Landers.Hmmmmmmmm..the Nots and rovers are covered with Dust,but not the Landers,feet?Anybody with half a mind can see something very wrong with these pics.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 549832
True...that is why school is so desperately needed to support our space mission...
after attending such a system for 12 years, anyone who started out with half a mind now has none whatsoever.
Like mr. nasascience genius a few posts back who believes that the 500 miles any successful manned space ship has traveled above the earth since the Apollo missions is 69 or 79 % to the moon, even though the moon itself is well over 200,000 miles away.
.3 of 1% is more like it...
That would be me. And you didn't notice (because you lack the background to understand what was being said in front of you) but several other posters have already agreed with me.
It's not a hard principle, you know.
But you'd rather spend your time repeating yourself over and over, and starting new threads for the same rants, instead of spending, oh, ten minutes learning a few basics about space flight.
That would be me. And you didn't notice (because you lack the background to understand what was being said in front of you) but several other posters have already agreed with me.
It's not a hard principle, you know.
But you'd rather spend your time repeating yourself over and over, and starting new threads for the same rants, instead of spending, oh, ten minutes learning a few basics about space flight.
Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 711198
poor baby...he thinks if "several other posters" say it (obviously shills)
Then it must be true...
Sorry mr geniussuperiorintellect o' great one...
I know I've repeated it a few times but
1000 miles still stays 1000 miles and not 230,000 miles.
and it still is less than one percent of the total distance to the moon...
I know it's hard to break out of your denial...we're all rooting for you...
you don't need to spend your life pretending we went to the moon. Soon you will find that no one, not even your mother believes you.
so have you seen the videos of the "moon rover" kicking up rooster tales...Let's see what mr. 70% to the moon thinks of those...or has he finally floated away....
Yes, that's the distance in MILES. It's not the distance to the Moon for a SPACECRAFT.
Do you measure how long a battery lasts by its voltage? Do you measure the range of an automobile by its top speed?
The space sciences are, like many sciences, not intuitive. Your gut instinct is shaped by thirty years of walking around in a gravity field under an atmosphere, and moving objects with muscle power, and formed from two million years of doing the same. Our gut instinct isn't a good guide to behavior in vacuum, out of a gravity well, at large scales, at small scales; in, in fact, anything much beyond the reach of our own hands.
I'll say it again; the yardstick for the difficulty of traveling to locations in our solar system isn't distance. By the yardstick that's really important, the Shuttle, and the Soyuz, have achieved roughly 70% of a trip to the Moon by the time they reach orbit.
Wouldn't fine dust in vacuum condtions behave as a more or less compact body, possibly electrically charged aswell, so that jetexhaust wouldn't much perturb the compacted mass of lunar dust?
Quoting: X- FACTOR 1595
Hey, all you lunar experts and lunatics, what about my assumption regarding moondust in vacuum conditions ?
Feasable or flawed?
Anonymous Coward User ID: 719447 7/6/2009 11:17 AM
Yes, that's the distance in MILES. It's not the distance to the Moon for a SPACECRAFT.
Do you measure how long a battery lasts by its voltage? Do you measure the range of an automobile by its top speed?
The space sciences are, like many sciences, not intuitive. Your gut instinct is shaped by thirty years of walking around in a gravity field under an atmosphere, and moving objects with muscle power, and formed from two million years of doing the same. Our gut instinct isn't a good guide to behavior in vacuum, out of a gravity well, at large scales, at small scales; in, in fact, anything much beyond the reach of our own hands.
I'll say it again; the yardstick for the difficulty of traveling to locations in our solar system isn't distance. By the yardstick that's really important, the Shuttle, and the Soyuz, have achieved roughly 70% of a trip to the Moon by the time they reach orbit.
Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 711198
hey buddy...NASA and everyone else still measures distance with MILES and/or METERS....
You're a snakeoil deception artist...
Soon billions of guts will be telling their owners that that is true and true about the whole NASA program and the rest of the elite bastards who want us dead.
You're not fooling anyone now.
so have you seen the videos of the "moon rover" kicking up rooster tales...Let's see what mr. 70% to the moon thinks of those...or has he finally floated away....
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 718722
Yes, and since the rooster tails of dust follow a ballastic trajectory and do not billow, it proves it was filmed in the vacuum of space. Thanks for mentioning it!
You know I'm actually moving to the belief that rocket propulsion does not actually work in the vacuum of space. Even though they say the space shuttle is in the vacuum of space, there are suspicions that there is actually still some form of thin atmosphere around the shuttles, and that is why they still can maneuver with small retro rocket firings.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 439828
There is no atmosphere to speak of around the shuttle. Do the math; the dynamic pressure around the orbiter even at mach 25+ is 0.00. If the shuttle had to push off molecules of air to reenter the way you can push yourself off a wall with your hand, it would be stranded in orbit forever. Furthermore, probes like Deep Impact that have been observed by amateurs provide independent proof of our ability to maneuver with rockets in deep space.
Please, fellows, don't spoil it yet...but I know there are several other people on this thread who know what I mean by saying LEO is 70% of the way to the Moon, and can probably duplicate my math in it as well. As well as, you know, agree with the statement!
Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 711198
Can we spoil it yet? I know what you're talking about, but did you calculate it for a simple hohmann transfer or for an apollo-style free return trajectory complete with TEI? I thought the number would be closer to 50-60% for the latter but that's just off the top of my head so I could be wrong about that.
Your point? There's no reason why a wheel on the moon wouldn't produce a "rooster tail" shape - different dust particles will have different initial velocities coming off the wheel. The difference is that on earth the dust will form wide billowing clouds and hover.
hey buddy...NASA and everyone else still measures distance with MILES and/or METERS....
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 719447
Doesn't matter; distance to a target isn't the important factor in determining difficulty to reach a given orbital radius... hopefully that's not too much of a giveaway.
Your point? There's no reason why a wheel on the moon wouldn't produce a "rooster tail" shape - different dust particles will have different initial velocities coming off the wheel. The difference is that on earth the dust will form wide billowing clouds and hover.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 634208
so actually there is more gravitational pull on the moon?
You are not just a liar...you're a very bad one.
Please watch the video before you comment on it...
Please please, mr. genius, tell us how they invented the incredible melt resistant film in the magic heat proof camera that functions great with no insulation at temperatures over 200 F.
Oh, I forgot....Cameras can't get hot in the sun on the moon.
Only the moon can get hot...
alrighteeeeeeeeeeeeee.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 718127
Alrighteee Mr. Academically challenged Coward.
The Apollo astronauts used what was, at the time, a special transparency film produced by Eastman Kodak under a NASA contract. The photosensitive emulsions layers where placed on an ESTAR polyester film base, which had previously been used primarily for motion picture film. The melting point of Estar is 490° F, although some shrinkage and distortion can occur at around 200° F. Fortunately the film was never exposed to this kind of temperature. The cameras were protected inside a special case designed to keep them cool. The situation on the airless Moon is much different than in your oven, for instance. Without convection or conduction, the only method of heat transfer is radiation.
Radiative heat can be effectively directed away from an object by wrapping it in a material with a reflective surface, usually simply a white material. The camera casings, as well as most of the astronauts' clothing, were indeed white.
The "concept" of heat not conducting in a vacuum is the basis of the Vacuum Thermos flask which can keep cool drinks cool in the heat, and hot drinks hot in the cold.
yessiree mr. sciencejock genius...no stars visible from the moon
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 718127
Yessiree Mr Clueless Coward, I thought I had dealt with that myth already. Oh well..The answer is (like you) very simple: they are too faint. The Apollo photos are of brightly lit objects on the surface of the Moon, for which fast exposure settings were required. The fast exposures simply did not allow enough starlight into the camera to record an image on the film. For the same reason, images of the Earth taken from orbit also lack stars. The stars are there; they just don't appear in the pictures.
...and no dust on the lem.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 718127
Takes a deep breath..As for lack of dust on the LM footpads, it is a result of the high velocity of the dust blown away by the descent engine. That dust flew far away from the lander and very little of it settled near the LM itself. Consider the flight of a dust particle blown off at an initial velocity of 100 meters/second (a little over 220 miles per hour) and at an angle above the horizon of 10 degrees. It's horizontal initial velocity is 92.5 meters/second while its upward initial velocity is 17.4 meters/sec. In the atmosphere-less 1/6 lunar gravity, it would fly upward for 10.6 seconds before reaching its maximum height of 92 meters above the lunar surface. About 10.6 seconds later, it impacts on the lunar surface almost 2.1 kilometers away from the lunar module!
...no crater under it neither...
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 718127
There are many photographs which show the disturbance of the lunar soil under or near the Lunar Module.
Note the radial disturbance in the soil from the outward blast.
The LM had 6 foot long landing probes under 3 of the 4 footpads and when any of the probes contacted the surface, the crew shut down the engine so that the LM would fall the last few feet to the surface, so the engine was more than 6 feet above the surface at its closest.
Also, the expectation of having a blast crater (presumably looking like a fresh impact crater?) under the LM is flawed. Does a garden hose sprayed at high pressure into the dirt create a blast crater? It surely blows the surface dirt in a radial direction and will clear out a small hole, but not a blast crater (like an explosion of dynamite, perhaps?). There is even an Earthly example of a rocket landing on dirt. The DC-X was a test flight program of a vertical takeoff and landing rocket. On one of its last flights, it made an emergency landing outside of the pad area. Despite the hydrogen/oxygen engine producing a thrust of some 60,000 pounds (about 20 times the thrust of the LM descent engine at touchdown!), the engine produced a mark on the desert floor that was barely recognizable. Given that the LM descent stage engine bell is about 5 feet across at the bottom, and that thrust of the engine at touchdown was about 3,000 pounds, that blast pressure of the rocket exhaust was only about 1 pound per square inch. - Nowhere near enough to gouge the massive crater you hoaxers believe would be produced.
...and no way to explain all those footprints in the thick soft dust around it-- dust that remained undisturbed from the blast force that must have modulated the effects of gravity as descended by exerting enormous pressure and heat...well well...what have we here?
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 718127
The underlined bit is pure gibberish. As for what made footprints? How about "Feet".
alrightee then. Mr. Nasa Supermind... Someone who cannot calculate even a decent proximity of a percentage point when talking in terms of sums involving multiples of 1000 as in
Moon over 200,000 miles from earth
Van Allen belts 1,000.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 718127
Alrightee Mr Nano-Brain Coward.More gibberish, but I guess this maybe what you are alluding to: The Van Allen radiation belts extend from about 600 miles up to more than 40,000 miles from Earth with the region of highest radiation intensity being between around 2,000 miles and 12,000 miles above Earth. The astronauts exposure to those radiation belts is brief (less than 4 hours total - they begin their time in this region while traveling at 25,000 MPH! They spend less than an hour in the densest part of the belt.) and they are well protected in their spacecraft. Here is a link to a webpage that describes the radiation environment and physiological effects on the Apollo astronauts.
Also, the belt is toroidal in shape (like a donut) and the trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft were designed to avoid the worst part of the Van Allen belts. Even the discoverer of the Van Allen belts, Professor James A. Van Allen, has noted that the belts would not have been dangerous to the Apollo astronauts given their trajectories and their spacecraft.
while "moon" rovers zip about and shoot huge arcs of dust that fall in sharp patterns....patterns that only would happen in an atmosphere such as earth's...
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 718127
The fact that the rover dust falls in sharp arc patterns is PROOF of a lack of atmosphere. With air present, a cloud of dust is suspended in the wake of a moving vehicle leaving a trail that takes a while to settle. Check out these images of "Earth" vehicles moving on loose dust to see this effect.
That this does not happen on the Lunar rover shots is proof of a lack of atmosphere, Ie: filmed in a vacuum. The speed at which the dust falls back is also indicative of 1/6th gravity as would be expected on the Moon.
If school taught you all that....
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 718127
Yesireeeee Mr Thick as pig-shit Coward, Academia does have certain advantages over the claims of the likes of Sibrel, Percy and Kaysing. (The truth) In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - George Orwell
By the yardstick that's really important, the Shuttle, and the Soyuz, have achieved roughly 70% of a trip to the Moon by the time they reach orbit.
Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 711198
Sorry, you get an F on the test. Please re-take Engineering 101, and for that matter Science 101.
One simple measure of the difficulty of a task in either science or engineering is the number of critical unknowns (either theoretical, for science, or practical, for engineering) still to be resolved.
Any human travel outside earth orbit and/or to another celestial body faces the unresolved scientific question of the effects of radiation of all kinds on the human body, both in deep space and on that celestial body. NASA now admits that it does not know what those effects are, and is thus conducting exactly the experiments that we would expect:
[link to dsc.discovery.com]
---
"That part of the radiation environment has not been well observed in the past," said Boston University's Harlan Spence, the lead scientist for LRO's Cosmic Ray Telescope for the Effects of Radiation, or CRaTER instrument. "There's a huge difference between being in low-Earth [orbit] and deep space."
...
"When you get about a tenth of the way to the moon, you're basically in deep space and at those altitudes we really don't have a good idea of how radiation interacts with human tissue," Spence said.
---
Once scientists get a theoretical answer to this question, ethical engineers will then insist on a practical test involving an animal, preferably a primate, before risking human life in deep space or on another celestial body.
A second issue in going to the Moon is mostly engineering. Even if scientists believe they understand the lunar terrain at any particular location, the fact is that except for the extremely dubious Apollo missions, the United States has never landed a craft of any kind on the Moon and returned it home to earth safely. Thus, ethical engineers will insist on a robotic land-and-return mission before risking human life on a moon landing.
Disclaimer: This website exists for entertainment purposes only. The reader is responsible for discerning the validity, factuality
or implications of information posted here, be it fictional or based on real events. Moderators on this forum make every
effort to review the material posted on this site however, it is not realistically possible for our small staff to manually
review each and every one of the more than 10,000 posts GodlikeProductions gets on a daily basis.
The content of post
on this site, including but not limited to links to other web sites, are the expressed opinion of the original poster and are in
no way representative of or endorsed by the owners or administration of this website. The posts on this website are the opinion of
the specific author and are not statements of advice, opinion, or factual information on behalf of the owner or
administration of GodlikeProductions.
This site may contain adult content and if you feel you might be offended by such content, you should log off immediately.
Not all posts on this website are intended as truthful or factual assertion by their authors. Some users of this website are participating in internet role playing, with or without the use of an avatar. NO post on this website should be considered factual information on face value alone. Users are encouraged to USE DISCERNMENT and do their own follow up research while reading and posting on this website. Godlikeproductions.com reserves the right to make changes to, corrections and/or remove entirely at any time posts made on this website without notice. In addition, Godlikeproductions.com disclaims any and all liability for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of a post on this website.
This site is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. You should not assume that this site is error-free or that it will be suitable for the particular purpose which you have in mind when using it. In no event shall Godlikeproductions.com be liable for any special, incidental, indirect or consequential damages of any kind, or any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, those resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether or not advised of the possibility of damage, and on any theory of liability, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this site or other documents which are referenced by or linked to this site.
Some events depicted in certain posting and threads on this website may be fictitious and any similarity to any person living or dead is merely coincidental. Some other articles may be based on actual events but which in certain cases incidents, characters and timelines have been changed for dramatic purposes. Certain characters may be composites, or entirely fictitious.
We do not discriminate against the mentally ill!
Fair Use Notice: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Users may make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to civil rights, economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science & technology, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information please visit: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Please be aware any communications sent complaining about a post on this website may be posted publicly at the discretion of the administration.
This Disclaimer is subject to change at anytime.
Mail Webmaster with questions or comments about this site.
How old are you? Have you ever attended a place called school?