Did NASA just admit they never put Man on The Moon? [Video]

originally posted by: Box of Rain
a reply to: FoosM

The finely powdered lunar surface dust (at least as fine as talcum powder or bread flour) did not billow up into lingering clouds, as it would if there was a thick atmosphere. Instead, the dust just fell back along a parabolic trajectory, as would happen in the absence of air resistance, or in the absence of atmosphere that could suspend dust particles as billowy clouds

So you disagree with the testimony of the Astronauts.
I see.

originally posted by: FutureWithoutFuture4
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

oops looks like we got ourselves a little "data miner" Terry here

Why I ought to be more careful

I am just a regular guy here, I have no real formal education, but I did travel to few continents, absorbed bunch of unrelated information. Which interestingly enough become very much related within my own thoughts.

For this reason I came to understand that selective and too specific - non - broad - education system does not produce quality thinkers...

US did go to the moon, and then U-Turned never to go back officially.
Something told them, stay back "hairheads" (humans)

And so you include yourself as a non-quality thinker?

originally posted by: FoosM

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: FoosM

did the dust linger???

on the moon a large amount of dust moving along a ballistic trajectory will look like a dust cloud.. but will it linger or billow??

if you kick up the dust on the moon, it will follow a ballistic trajectory but the amount will make it look like a dust cloud.. but will it linger/billow??

If you kicked up dust on the moon would there be some on your foot?

yes, now answer my question, will the dust linger/billow??

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: FoosM

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: FoosM

did the dust linger???

on the moon a large amount of dust moving along a ballistic trajectory will look like a dust cloud.. but will it linger or billow??

if you kick up the dust on the moon, it will follow a ballistic trajectory but the amount will make it look like a dust cloud.. but will it linger/billow??

If you kicked up dust on the moon would there be some on your foot?

yes, now answer my question, will the dust linger/billow??

So why aren't the footpads of the LM full of dust?

a reply to: FoosM

So why aren't the footpads of the LM full of dust?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Should I keep going? Why do you seem incapable of learning?

originally posted by: FoosM

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: FoosM

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: FoosM

did the dust linger???

on the moon a large amount of dust moving along a ballistic trajectory will look like a dust cloud.. but will it linger or billow??

if you kick up the dust on the moon, it will follow a ballistic trajectory but the amount will make it look like a dust cloud.. but will it linger/billow??

If you kicked up dust on the moon would there be some on your foot?

yes, now answer my question, will the dust linger/billow??

So why aren't the footpads of the LM full of dust?

im sorry, i wasnt aware that the LM footpads were moving about and kicking up dust.. so im guessing you want to believe that the LM was walking around also?

or do you mean the lunar dust sticking to the footpad like this:


p.s. i realise it must be an extremely difficult question for you to answer considering you keep avoiding it but i still need you to understand the answer, so ill ask again for the third time: will the dust billow/linger??

originally posted by: choos

im sorry, i wasnt aware that the LM footpads were moving about and kicking up dust.. so im guessing you want to believe that the LM was walking around also?

But you are aware that when Apollo 11 touched down its engine was still running and regolith was still shown being
displaced out from under the LM. Which means some of that regolith had to have hit the legs of the LM and
collected in the pads. So why dont we see regolith collected in the footpads?

originally posted by: FoosM

originally posted by: choos

im sorry, i wasnt aware that the LM footpads were moving about and kicking up dust.. so im guessing you want to believe that the LM was walking around also?

But you are aware that when Apollo 11 touched down its engine was still running and regolith was still shown being
displaced out from under the LM. Which means some of that regolith had to have hit the legs of the LM and
collected in the pads. So why dont we see regolith collected in the footpads?

Unless the descent engine pushed all of the loose regolith away prior to touchdown.

originally posted by: FoosM

originally posted by: choos

im sorry, i wasnt aware that the LM footpads were moving about and kicking up dust.. so im guessing you want to believe that the LM was walking around also?

But you are aware that when Apollo 11 touched down its engine was still running and regolith was still shown being
displaced out from under the LM. Which means some of that regolith had to have hit the legs of the LM and
collected in the pads. So why dont we see regolith collected in the footpads?

why would it be collected in the pads??

so what you are suggesting that the dust is blown away from the engine hits the legs then all of a sudden is immune from being blown away by the engine again and all its momentum will suddenly disappear causing majority of the dust to fall straight down onto the footpad??

you have a fascinating view of physics..

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: FoosM

originally posted by: choos

im sorry, i wasnt aware that the LM footpads were moving about and kicking up dust.. so im guessing you want to believe that the LM was walking around also?

But you are aware that when Apollo 11 touched down its engine was still running and regolith was still shown being
displaced out from under the LM. Which means some of that regolith had to have hit the legs of the LM and
collected in the pads. So why dont we see regolith collected in the footpads?

why would it be collected in the pads??

so what you are suggesting that the dust is blown away from the engine hits the legs then all of a sudden is immune from being blown away by the engine again and all its momentum will suddenly disappear causing majority of the dust to fall straight down onto the footpad??

you have a fascinating view of physics..

Come on... Did not the Lunar Module thrusters excert something like 2 tons of thrust, is it not likely that moondust and sand would have been thrown everywhere and a crater should have appeared under the Lunar Module? If an astronaut could kick up the dust by just walking then what do you think 2 tons of thrust from a rocket engine would do to the moon dust; the dust would obviously have been thrown everywhere and a crater should have been formed under the Lunar module from all the blown away dust. What we see instead is no crater under the Lunar Module and no moon dust on it either, all which is impossible. A hairdryer would have kicked up more moondust than what the Apollo 11 pictures show; remember, we are talking about a rocket engine here with 2 tons of thrust behind it.

-MM

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation
Did not the Lunar Module thrusters excert something like 2 tons of thrust,

Apparently you were not aware the thrust of it was variable.... up to 45,040 N actually.

is it not likely that moondust and sand would have been thrown everywhere and a crater should have appeared under the Lunar Module?

So you know nothing about the lunar landing, how they throttled the engine right back? Or there was a crater underneath it?
Have a look at www.braeunig.us...

If an astronaut could kick up the dust by just walking then what do you think 2 tons of thrust from a rocket engine would do to the moon dust;

Why do you claim the rocket was at full throttle whilst landing?

the dust would obviously have been thrown everywhere and a crater should have been formed under the Lunar module from all the blown away dust. What we see instead is no crater under the Lunar Module

Oh dear, so you have not even bothered to look at the picture of the crater under the lunar lander.... funny that!

A hairdryer would have kicked up more moondust than what the Apollo 11 pictures show;

So you think a hairdryer would blow air on the moon.... your statements just get sillier and sillier!

remember, we are talking about a rocket engine here with 2 tons of thrust behind it.

No we are not - why do you keep claiming it was at full throttle whilst landing?

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

are you also expecting the lunar dust to billow and linger??

seriously, do any of you hoax believers know what "vacuum of space" means??

why is it that nearly every hoax believer expects dust on the moon to behave exactly as it should on earth??

originally posted by: hellobruce

Apparently you were not aware the thrust of it was variable.... up to 45,040 N actually.

So you know nothing about the lunar landing, how they throttled the engine right back? Or there was a crater underneath it?

This is where you are wrong, according to the original NASA Press Kit for the Apollo 11 Mission:

Descent Propulsion System -- Maximum rated thrust of the
descent engine is 9,870 pounds (4,380.9 kg) and is throttleable
between 1,050 pounds (476.7 kg] and 6,300 pounds (2,860.2 kg).
The engine can be gimbaled six degrees in any direction in
response to attitude commands and for offset center of gravity
trimming. Propellants are helium-pressurized Aerozlne 50 and
nitrogen tetroxlde.

-Apollo 11 Press Kit Page 106 Source

It says right there that the minimum throttleable thrust was 1,050 pounds (476.7 kg] for the Lunar Module decent propultion system.

originally posted by: hellobruce
Why do you claim the rocket was at full throttle whilst landing?

According to page 106 in the Apollo 11 Mission Press Kit the minimum thrust for the decent engine was 1,050 pounds (476.7 kg] there was at least 1/2 ton of thrust and that would have thrown up a lot more lunar dust and sand than what is evident from the official Apollo Program images. Your belief that it was possible to thrust the decent engine down to zero or lower than1,050 pounds (476.7 kg] is plain wrong as is documented quite sufficiently in official NASA texts.

originally posted by: hellobruce

the dust would obviously have been thrown everywhere and a crater should have been formed under the Lunar module from all the blown away dust. What we see instead is no crater under the Lunar Module

Oh dear, so you have not even bothered to look at the picture of the crater under the lunar lander.... funny that!

There is no crater below the Apollo 11 decent thruster, as is quite evident in this picture of the ground beneath the Apollo 11 Lunar Module decent engine thruster:

Download Hi-Res original of the Apollo 11 image here

originally posted by: hellobruce

A hairdryer would have kicked up more moondust than what the Apollo 11 pictures show;

So you think a hairdryer would blow air on the moon.... your statements just get sillier and sillier!

Where did I ever say that the hairdryer was blowing air? I was speaking of the effect in Newtons.

originally posted by: hellobruce

remember, we are talking about a rocket engine here with 2 tons of thrust behind it.

No we are not - why do you keep claiming it was at full throttle whilst landing?

Page 106 in the Apollo 11 Mission Press Kit says that the minimum thrust for the decent engine was 1,050 pounds (476.7 kg], this means that the thrust had to have been at least 1/2 ton when the Lunar Module landed.

-MM

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation
Page 106 in the Apollo 11 Mission Press Kit says that the minimum thrust for the decent engine was 1,050 pounds (476.7 kg], this means that the thrust had to have been at least 1/2 ton when the Lunar Module landed.

-MM

So you are saying that a rocket with 1,050 pounds of force will blast a crater into the sub-surface regolith of the Moon?

Frankly, I didn't have all of the pertinent data to be able to calculate the size of crater that should have been blasted (data such as force of thrust per square meter, hardness of surface, etc), but the person in this link (below -- and previously posted by 'hellobruce') has provided the data and has gone through the maths to show what kind of crater could have been blasted by the LM (the entire link is relevant, but it gets more relevant to the specific question being discussed about half way down the page):

Lunar Module Blast Crater

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation
Page 106 in the Apollo 11 Mission Press Kit says that the minimum thrust for the decent engine was 1,050 pounds (476.7 kg], this means that the thrust had to have been at least 1/2 ton when the Lunar Module landed.

-MM

So you are saying that a rocket with 1,050 pounds of force will blast a crater into the sub-surface regolith of the Moon?

Frankly, I didn't have all of the pertinent data to be able to calculate the size of crater that should have been blasted (data such as force of thrust per square meter, hardness of surface, etc), but the person in this link (below -- and previously posted by 'hellobruce') has provided the data and has gone through the maths to show what kind of crater could have been blasted by the LM (the entire link is relevant, but it gets more relevant to the specific question being discussed about half way down the page):

Lunar Module Blast Crater

Do you have any idea how powerful a 1,000 pound thrust rocket engine is? Well I can tell you that such an engine can blow down trees. See this video of a 1,000 pound thrust engine test, look at the grass and the trees 30 feet away at about 0:30 and you get an idea of the sheer power we are talking about:



And this is at the mimimum thrust the Lunar Module could have landed with mind you. After seeing this demonstration then how can you possibly claim that 1,000 lbs of thrust would not kick up moon dust just 1 or 2 feet below the Lunar Module decent engine?

-MM

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

again.. the moon has neglible atmosphere.. it is in a vacuum..

why would you assume that the same things you see on earth should be seen on the moon?? is earth a vacuum??

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

First of all, the engine bell on the LM had a nozzle diameter of 63 inches (more than 5 feet in diameter). The nozzle diameter of the jet engine in the video looks to be about 16 inches at best. So while they both may be outputting 1,000 lbs of force (i.e., they would be able to hold up 1000 pounds on Earth if the engine was pointed downward), the pressure per each square inch of force would be much less for the LM than for the jet in the video because of the larger area that the force is distributed.

Someone check my math, but I calculate that the large surface area of the LM nozzle (992 square inches) is 15 times greater than the surface are of the jet nozzle (64 square inches, if we assume a nozzle diameter of 16 inches). That means the force of the LM engine pushing on each square inch of surface would be less than 7% of the jet engine.



Secondly, can you show me a similar calculation than the one below (from the link I previously provided) that shows how that thrust would blast a crater in the surface?

From the preceding section, we know the mass and kinetic energy of the exhaust gas as it contacts the ground. After colliding with the ground and losing energy to the soil, the gas will slow to 1,000 m/s. Knowing the final velocity of the gas we can calculate its final kinetic energy. Using the maximum mass value from Figure 5, we have

KEgas = 6.332 × 1000^2 / 2 = 3.17×10^6 J/m2

The amount of energy transferred to the soil is equal to the amount given up by the gas (assuming no loses). Using the maximum kinetic energy from Figure 6, we have the following. Note that in this scenario 89% of the gas kinetic energy is transferred to the soil.

KEsoil = 29.08×10^6 – 3.17×10^6 = 25.91×10^6 J/m2

Now that we know the kinetic energy and velocity of the soil, we can calculate the mass of soil needed to carry this energy,

m = 2 × 25.91×10^6 / 1000^2 = 51.82 kg/m2

To convert the above to a depth, we simply divide by the soil density. From Geotechnical Properties of Lunar Soil (Page 6), we read "On average, the bulk density, r, is approximately 1.30 g/cm3 at the surface, increases rapidly to 1.52 g/cm3 at a depth of 10 cm, then more gradually to 1.83 g/cm3 at a depth of 100 cm." Since we're dealing essentially with surface material, we'll use the low number of 1.30 g/cm3 (1,300 kg/m3), which is also conservative because a lower density means a larger volume of material is excavated. We have,

Depth = 51.82 / 1300 = 0.0399 m, or 39.9 mm (1.57 inches)

This is the maximum depth taken at the point where we have the greatest concentration of exhaust gas mass and kinetic energy. Since the mass and energy is distributed unevenly over the lunar surface, the depth will vary. Figure 7 below shows the depth of soil removed from the area near where the LM came to rest.

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

again.. the moon has neglible atmosphere.. it is in a vacuum..

why would you assume that the same things you see on earth should be seen on the moon?? is earth a vacuum??

Vacuum or not, the ejection of gases from the Lunar Module decent engine's rocket produced at least 1,050 lbs of thrust towards the ground just 1-2 feet below the rocket engine nozzle; this is how I understand Newton's Third Law works in a vacuum where there is no air to push against. See this video for a visual representation of the principle:



-MM

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

NASA's own video contradicts what you are claiming. In this video of the Apollo 15 Lunar Module takeoff one can see that the rocket engine is so powerful that it blasts the moon soil near the camera away, even though the camera is probably 15 feet from the Lunar Module during the takeoff.



One can clearly see the dust from the blast rise up all around the Lunar Orbiter extending perhaps as much as 15 feet away. How do you explain that?

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

again.. the moon has neglible atmosphere.. it is in a vacuum..

why would you assume that the same things you see on earth should be seen on the moon?? is earth a vacuum??

Look at the video above and try to explain to me again how the Lunar Module rocket engine could not move moon dust because it is a vacuum on the moon. That which you are seeing is a large amount of moon soil & dust being blasted by the Lunar Module rocket engine; there is the video evidence that the Lunar Module's rocket engine was powerful enough to blast moon dust and thusly there should have been a crater under the Lunar Module and dust on the feet of the Lunar Module.

-MM

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Great now are you able to understand how dust is light enough to be affected by the atmosphere of earth?? Ie drag..

And are you also able to understand what high pressure areas will want to do in a low pressure environment??