It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 34
45
<< 31  32  33    35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 05:11 AM
link   
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

i just want to know why you think Apollo should have a huge blast crater but every other mission from any nation does not need to..

and now the KGB faked lunokhod 1?? and they happened to fake it for an unmanned mission?? you are now suggesting the soviets were so incompetent that they had to fake a robotic mission to the moon??

not only did they have to fake it, but they fake the lunar regolith in the same way as Apollo did?? i know they were in the middle of a cold war so why didnt the soviets fake a large blast crater??

p.s. why cant i bring in other data?? is it because it proves you wrong??
edit on 3-1-2015 by choos because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 05:50 AM
link   
a reply to: choos

Why do you need to bring in Soviet missions, can't you prove your claims using NASA data?

-MM



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 05:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation
can't you prove your claims using NASA data?


Well, you ignore data from NASA, like the picture of the crater under Apollo 11....



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 06:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation
a reply to: choos

Why do you need to bring in Soviet missions, can't you prove your claims using NASA data?

-MM


Perfect Hoaxie logic: "Everything NASA says is a lie, but you must use NASA data to prove they are not lying...."



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 07:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation
a reply to: choos

Why do you need to bring in Soviet missions, can't you prove your claims using NASA data?

-MM


Perfect Hoaxie logic: "Everything NASA says is a lie, but you must use NASA data to prove they are not lying...."


Well then since choos failed to, then perhaps you can explain the following. We are dealing with at least 1,050 lbs of thrust from the Lunar Module decent engine rocket, NASA's own papers say that the decent engine's minimum throttle as 1,050 lbs. Here is a demonstration of a 1,000 lbs thrust engine and at 0:30 you see the effect on trees as much as 30 feet away from the engine.



The Lunar Module decente engine he nuzzle is just 1-2 feet above the moon dust, and would of course blast the light moon dust away with ease.

Moon hoax debunkers at this point usually say that the rocket engine does not have enough effect to whirl up moon dust in a vacuum like there is on the moon; however, this video proves without a doubt that the Lunar Module rocket engine whirls up moon dust:



There should have been a clearly visible crater under the Lunar Module formed by the 1,050 lbs thrust rocket engine blasting away moon dust during the landing, but there is not; just look at NASA photo number AS11-40-5921:

Download high-res AS11-40-5921

This is obviously not the exposed moon bedrock in the above photo AS11-40-5921, as studies from the landing area says that the regolith went down 10-13 feet (3-4 meters).

-MM

edit on 3-1-2015 by MerkabaMeditation because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation
a reply to: choos

Why do you need to bring in Soviet missions, can't you prove your claims using NASA data?

-MM


why?? because the soviets was part of this world.. you cant just say the soviets dont count because they prove you wrong.. thats not how this world works..


There should have been a clearly visible crater under the Lunar Module formed by the 1,050 lbs thrust rocket engine blasting away moon dust during the landing, but there is not;


im fairly certain you are just trolling now..

wheres the crater for Lunokhod/Luna missions??
wheres the crater for chang'e 3 mission??
wheres the crater for the surveyor missions??

these dont count because they prove you wrong??
edit on 3-1-2015 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 10:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation
a reply to: choos

Why do you need to bring in Soviet missions, can't you prove your claims using NASA data?

-MM


why?? because the soviets was part of this world.. you cant just say the soviets dont count because they prove you wrong.. thats not how this world works..


There should have been a clearly visible crater under the Lunar Module formed by the 1,050 lbs thrust rocket engine blasting away moon dust during the landing, but there is not;


im fairly certain you are just trolling now..

wheres the crater for Lunokhod/Luna missions??
wheres the crater for chang'e 3 mission??
wheres the crater for the surveyor missions??

these dont count because they prove you wrong??


1. Are you saying that you can't prove me wrong using NASA's own data?
2. How can we discuss a mission with so little data, what was the Luna 17 landers thrust lbs for example? Was its thrust throttleble and how much? Etc.
3. How do we not know if the Lunokhod mission photos are faked like the Apollo?

-MM
edit on 3-1-2015 by MerkabaMeditation because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

is surveyor a NASA mission?

p.s. are you also trying to suggest that the soviets and the chinese were also hoaxing their respective unmanned lunar missions??
edit on 3-1-2015 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

I see several things wrong here.

The animated GIF of the upper stage LM taking off: It is at full thrust doing so. The LM did not land at full thrust, so you are comparing two different things there.

The video of the rocket in the truck: This again is comparing two different things. The exhaust nozzle on the device on the truck is much smaller in diameter, meaning the exhaust will be focused much more than the LM nozzle. The engine on the truck is in Earth's environment, meaning significant atmospheric pressure is present for the exhaust to push on, creating a large amount of over pressure. You can not have that on the moon due to the lack of atmosphere, so again, you are comparing apples to oranges.

That is rock that is under the LM in the picture. You can see quite clearly that it is rock that has had lunar material blown away from it.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: IamGroot
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

I see several things wrong here.

The animated GIF of the upper stage LM taking off: It is at full thrust doing so. The LM did not land at full thrust, so you are comparing two different things there.

The video of the rocket in the truck: This again is comparing two different things. The exhaust nozzle on the device on the truck is much smaller in diameter, meaning the exhaust will be focused much more than the LM nozzle. The engine on the truck is in Earth's environment, meaning significant atmospheric pressure is present for the exhaust to push on, creating a large amount of over pressure. You can not have that on the moon due to the lack of atmosphere, so again, you are comparing apples to oranges.

That is rock that is under the LM in the picture. You can see quite clearly that it is rock that has had lunar material blown away from it.



The gases from the rocket engine would still be jettisoned out at 1,050 lbs or more, this is how Newton's Thrid Law works in a vacuume. See this video for a visual aid:



-MM



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Saying that an engine has thrust is rated at 1,050 pounds is NOT the same as saying the engine output force is 1,050 pounds (not exactly).

An engine that is said to be rated at 1,050 pounds is an engine whose total thrust would lift 1,050 pounds on Earth. That's the total of the entire area of thrust.

The LM descent engine and that jet engine in your video can both have "1000 pounds of thrust", but the jet engines' thrust is concentrated in a smaller area (a much smaller exhaust nozzle) than the LM's exhaust nozzle. Therefore, while the total thrust was the same for both engines, the force per square inch for the jet would be greater, given the smaller nozzle.

As I calculated above, the force per square inch coming out of the LM engine at low throttle is about 7% of the thrust of the jet engine in your video.


edit on 1/3/2015 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Saying that an engine has thrust is rated at 1,050 pounds is NOT the same as saying the engine output force is 1,050 pounds (not exactly).

An engine that is said to be rated at 1,050 pounds is an engine whose total thrust would lift 1,050 pounds on Earth. That's the total of the entire area of thrust.

The LM descent engine and that jet engine in your video can both have "1000 pounds of thrust", but the jet engines' thrust is concentrated in a smaller area (a much smaller exhaust nozzle) than the LM's exhaust nozzle. Therefore, while the total thrust was the same for both engines, the force per square inch for the jet would be greater, given the smaller nozzle.

As I calculated above, the force per square inch coming out of the LM engine at low throttle is about 7% of the thrust of the jet engine in your video.



Then your calculations must obviously be wrong. For one, the Apollo 11 Lunar Module Ascent Engine generated 3,500 lbs of thrust, while the Lunar Module Ascent stage module weighed about 5,000 pounds with its crew and was additionally loaded with 5,214 pounds of propellant - making a total "wet" weight of the Lunar Module ascent stage module to about 10,000 pounds. At the moons 1/6 of the earth’s gravity the Lunar Module Ascent Stage weighed 1,667 pounds (10,000/6), and the ascent stage engine would at 7% efficiency have generated a thrust of just 245 lbs (7% of 3,500 lbs) - which of course is way too little power to rocket the Lunar Module ascent stage from the moon’s surface. This proves that your calculations are way off the mark as an rocket engine generating 245 lbs thrust would never be able to lift a mass of 1,667 pounds.

Data source: Apollo 11 Press Kit

-MM

edit on 3-1-2015 by MerkabaMeditation because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Here's an example of what you're saying, here on earth.

F-15 exhaust nozzles (watch from about 1:30):



The thrust rating isn't changing, but the force put out by the engine does, because the nozzles go smaller.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation


No. You're misunderstanding what I mean. BOTH the LM at low throttle and the jet engine in your video can lift the same amount (i.e., has the same amount of total thrust).

However, that total thrust for the LM is spread across 3,115 square inches (the area of the 63 inch nozzle), while the total thrust of the jet engine (same total thrust as the LM engine at low throttle) is spread across an area of 201 square inches (the area of the 16 inch jet nozzle).

Same total thrust, yet the wider engine nozzle pushes with less concentrated force.


I'm sure a rocket scientist out there will tell me that thrust calculations aren't as easy as calculating total area, and I'm sure they will be right. there are probably other factors involved. However, my point is that your video of the jet engine with the concentrated nozzle is NOT the same as the force of the LM descent engine, just because they are both "1000 pounds of thrust" engines.

You can't say "the jet engine in my video blows trees at 30 feet away; therefore, the LM engine should have blasted a deep crater"


edit on 1/3/2015 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 01:31 PM
link   

edit on 1/3/2015 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)


never mind.
edit on 1/3/2015 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 07:46 PM
link   


Case Closed

Its just unbelievable how spic and span this foot pad is after a dramatic landing on the moon.
There is absolutely no logical explanation for it. Especially when you consider the LM had to
be flying through dust that was already kicked up long before it landed.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 08:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: FoosM


Case Closed

Its just unbelievable how spic and span this foot pad is after a dramatic landing on the moon.
There is absolutely no logical explanation for it. Especially when you consider the LM had to
be flying through dust that was already kicked up long before it landed.


Spic and Span Foosm.

Let´s officially reopen the race to the moon



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: FoosM

Why would it be flying through dust? Are you not familiar with the ballistic mechanics of dust on the moon?



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 01:56 AM
link   
a reply to: FoosM

does the moon have a thick enough atmosphere to cause dust particles to linger or billow??

you like to avoid answering questions.. almost like you dont know the answer or you choose to ignore the answer because its against your beliefs..

but let me put it to you like this..

if NASA was competent enough to hoax the moon landing and keep it secret for over 40 years.. why would they take high definition close-up images of the footpads without dust and publish them to the public??

in other words, NASA decided to take multiple close up images of the footpads and display it to the public knowing the entire time that dust should have settled in the footpads (as per your claim) and NASA just happened to forget to fill in the dust for these images, not once but MULTIPLE times..

you are making NASA look incompetent to hoax the landing and keep it secret for over 40 years..



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 01:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: FoosM

does the moon have a thick enough atmosphere to cause dust particles to linger or billow??

you like to avoid answering questions.. almost like you dont know the answer or you choose to ignore the answer because its against your beliefs..


We have not avoided these questions, but rather we have proved you wrong with NASA's own video; in the video below you can see that the moon dust does not conform to you theories and goes everywhere like one would expect, thusly there should have been moon dust on the landers feet too.



-MM
edit on 8-1-2015 by MerkabaMeditation because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
45
<< 31  32  33    35  36 >>

log in

join