Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by exponent


ntrs.nasa.gov...

Here's a nicer source, 1050 to 10,500 lbs for the throttle control.

Right, with a bit more research I have found that the misunderstanding probably occurs because the force specified at clavius.org for the descent engine is given in 'Kgf'. I believe the source you quoted probably converted Kg into Lbs, and assumed that f meant feet, as in ft-lbs. In fact it means 'force', as in kg * 9.81 (or a bit less but I can't remember the extra places )

The actual conversion is direct, and it seems that the throttle was 10:1, so the power of the engine was 4462 - 44620N

So yeah, pretty low amounts of force involved here.

NASA mis-labeling.

NASA AS11-40-5875 (Part1)


5875:

LPI:
www.lpi.usra.edu...

vs

GRIN:
www.nasaimages.org...:Buzz-Aldrin-and-the-U-S--flag-on-th

vs

ALSJ
www.hq.nasa.gov...

vs

JSC
images.jsc.nasa.gov...

reply to post by backinblack


And....you responded exactly as arrogant (and wrong) as I expected....THIS, after FoosM went on about how it were only the "Apollo defenders" who were rude:

OK numb nuts..I'll make it simple..
FORCE = MASS X GRAVITY...

That easier for you??

No doubt, by now.....have you seen your mistake? Are you contrite, yet?

If not ---- "G" is generally considered a specific value....it is defined as the acceleration due to Gravity ....of EARTH'S gravity, specifically.

SO, using "G" in that case is not proper, since the discussion was about the forces from the Lunar Module descent engine, correct? Specifically, the gasses, when accelerated by the thrusting effects of the engine....they have a MASS, yes? AND, the rate of ACCELERATION that they are undergoing (completely irrespective of any forces of local gravity, in this instance) determines the FORCE that is exerted, by the exhaust flow.

NOW....where "gravity" comes into play is regarding the spacecraft itself....in this case, using the MOON'S Acceleration rates, for ITS gravity field......then you can determine the "weight" of the vehicle, within that specific gravitational field.

But, its MASS is the same, regardless.

Can you see your mistakes, now...yet? Is this clearer?

reply to post by FoosM


You mean Internet Archive mislabelling? The only one of the pictures you posted which was different was the one from the non-NASA site.

Also, are you now abandoning your previous points and starting a new tangent?

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by FoosM
All you did was state the opposite.
That is an answer not backed proof.

I linked you to a video of it occurring. Here, I'll embed it this time, maybe that will help.

Ok, you just proved our point.
Engine stopped after touchdown.

I asked if Cernan lied.
You have not answered that question.
Cernan said the LM would have made a crater.
Did he lie, yes or no?

No, why would he lie?

Ok so he didnt lie.
This means that the LM should have made a crater and caused a back blast when
it landed. Now how do you explain we so evidence of this in the photos or videos?

reply to post by FoosM


Sorry, but how pathetically desperate is UTuber "AwE130"???

Really??? This is, what exactly?

"breaking news" of a "smoking gun" of, what....exactly?

OH...that some people may accidentally confuse and mis-label two nearly identical photos, taken in quick succession, and make a mistake.....when there are multiple VENUES of people handling them.....tens of thousands of different images.

OH, wait......HERE!!! The digital equivalent of a "contact sheet" from old days of photography (actually, probably a digital scan of the REAL contact sheet, form the original negatives???):

www.lpi.usra.edu...


I mean, really? This is sad, even for the Apollo "hoax" propaganda teams.

YOU (and a few dolts on UTube....led by their new "king", JW) are doing a bang-up job of discrediting The so-called "hoax". Because, more and more people are wise to these juvenile and puerile tactics. In fact.....it would likely NOT be a stretch to suggest that, in most cases, the ONLY people who still "believe" in this "hoax" crap are not much removed from juveniles, in mind set.....

reply to post by FoosM


First, let me thank you for adding an avatar, it makes it much easier to keep track when searching through the thread. I've been keeping at a distance over this one because it's not a matter of force, per se, but pressure. The rocket exhaust is a gas that is escaping from an area of extremely high pressure to an area of extremely low pressure. The moment it leaves the nozzle it begins to hyper-expand... literally everywhere is at a lower pressure than the gas... except in one direction: the ground. We know that the lunar surface is capable of supporting the weight (yes, weight) of an astronaut distributed over the area of his foot at the depth of about 1 - 2 centimeters. Everywhere else, the pressure is pretty much zero. The gas is going to move towards this much lower pressure area, taking some of the regolith with it. It is not going to "dig a hole," just transport loose material as it rushes toward the vacuum.

Originally posted by FoosM
Ok, you just proved our point.
Engine stopped after touchdown.

No, it stopped after the contact probes touched. They were designed to extend down from the legs to provide early warning of the moon's surface. Why do you not know this?

Ok so he didnt lie.
This means that the LM should have made a crater and caused a back blast when
it landed. Now how do you explain we so evidence of this in the photos or videos?

No it doesn't, it means Cernan thought it would. We do see evidence of the dust being blown out from under the engine as in this lovely image.

Sooner or later you're going to have to actually learn something instead of watching youtube clips or ignoring answers.

Originally posted by FoosM
Ok, you just proved our point.
Engine stopped after touchdown.

Define "stopped." When the switch is flipped to "off," it takes time for the pressurized reactants already in the system to be consumed. The switch flip does not instantaneously stop the gases being expelled.

Originally posted by FoosM
Ok so he didnt lie.
This means that the LM should have made a crater and caused a back blast when
it landed. Now how do you explain we so evidence of this in the photos or videos?

You mean like how Apollo 15 cracked the descent engine nozzle, as seen in AS15-87-11842?

This guys entire adult life has been a waste since they have satellite photo evidence of the landing sites. What a deranged person, needs meds, and a therapist.

www.youtube.com...

Ultra Close-Up Views of the Apollo 11 Landing Site

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
Ok so he didnt lie.
This means that the LM should have made a crater and caused a back blast when
it landed. Now how do you explain we so evidence of this in the photos or videos?

You mean like how Apollo 15 cracked the descent engine nozzle, as seen in AS15-87-11842?

What do you mean Apollo 15 cracked the descent engine?
What exactly happened there?

Originally posted by FoosM
What do you mean Apollo 15 cracked the descent engine?
What exactly happened there?

Don't you know? Surely if NASA went to all the trouble of faking such a serious crack, they would have told the world? Otherwise why would they crack it?

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by FoosM
Ok, you just proved our point.
Engine stopped after touchdown.

No, it stopped after the contact probes touched. They were designed to extend down from the legs to provide early warning of the moon's surface. Why do you not know this?

Of course it stopped AFTER the contact probes supposedly touched the ground..
It stopped after it landed.
Whats your point?
Are you saying the contact lights automatically stop the engine?

Ok so he didnt lie.
This means that the LM should have made a crater and caused a back blast when
it landed. Now how do you explain we so evidence of this in the photos or videos?

No it doesn't, it means Cernan thought it would. We do see evidence of the dust being blown out from under the engine as in this lovely image.

Bad example.
A brushing of the ground does not constitute a crater or black blast.

Originally posted by FoosM
What do you mean Apollo 15 cracked the descent engine?
What exactly happened there?

Well, the engine buckled, at least, as you can see in AS15-88-11882. Apollo 15, being the first of the J-series missions, had the descent engine nozzle extended 10 inches compared to the previous missions. Just as trained, they cut the engine when the contact light came on, meaning the probe 6 feet below the foot pads had made contact. They dropped in to place. Between the drop compressing the landing gear and the fact that they were on the edge of a small crater, the descent engine made contact with the ground, buckling in the process.

Originally posted by FoosM
Of course it stopped AFTER the contact probes supposedly touched the ground..
It stopped after it landed.
Whats your point?

I did some double checking on this, and even Neil Armstrong is not sure whether the footpads were on the ground. From the video you can see an extra impact a second or two after 'Engine Off' is called, but then there's this from the annotated transcripts:

[Neil had planned to shut the engine down when the contact light came on, but didn't manage to do it.]

[Armstrong, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "I heard Buzz say something about contact, and I was spring-loaded to the stop engine position, but I really don't know...whether the engine-off signal was before (footpad) contact. In any event, the engine shutdown was not very high above the surface."]

Bad example.
A brushing of the ground does not constitute a crater or black blast.

No, it graphically illustrates that the engine did blow the dust around, but that the ground underneath was too compressed to be significantly disturbed. In fact Neil Armstrong mentions this directly:

[Armstrong: "I was surprised by a number of things, and I'm not sure (I can) recall them all now. I was surprised by the apparent closeness of the horizon. I was surprised by the trajectory of dust that you kicked up with your boot, and I was surprised that even though logic would have told me that there shouldn't be any, there was no dust when you kicked. You never had a cloud of dust there. That's a product of having an atmosphere, and when you don't have an atmosphere, you don't have any clouds of dust."]

["I was absolutely dumbfounded when I shut the rocket engine off and the particles that were going out radially from the bottom of the engine fell all the way out over the horizon, and when I shut the engine off, they just raced out over the horizon and instantaneously disappeared, you know, just like it had been shut off for a week. That was remarkable. I'd never seen that. I'd never seen anything like that. And logic says, yes, that's the way it ought to be there, but I hadn't thought about it and I was surprised."]

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
What do you mean Apollo 15 cracked the descent engine?
What exactly happened there?

Well, the engine buckled, at least, as you can see in AS15-88-11882. Apollo 15, being the first of the J-series missions, had the descent engine nozzle extended 10 inches compared to the previous missions. Just as trained, they cut the engine when the contact light came on, meaning the probe 6 feet below the foot pads had made contact. They dropped in to place. Between the drop compressing the landing gear and the fact that they were on the edge of a small crater, the descent engine made contact with the ground, buckling in the process.

Where is the evidence that this happened?
In the transcripts? On the ground? In the videos?

Originally posted by exponent

Bad example.
A brushing of the ground does not constitute a crater or black blast.

No, it graphically illustrates that the engine did blow the dust around, but that the ground underneath was too compressed to be significantly disturbed. In fact Neil Armstrong mentions this directly:

Armstrong: "I was surprised by a number of things, and I'm not sure (I can) recall them all now. I was surprised by the apparent closeness of the horizon. I was surprised by the trajectory of dust that you kicked up with your boot, and I was surprised that even though logic would have told me that there shouldn't be any, there was no dust when you kicked. You never had a cloud of dust there. That's a product of having an atmosphere, and when you don't have an atmosphere, you don't have any clouds of dust."

So Neil Armstrong has never been on the beach?

["I was absolutely dumbfounded when I shut the rocket engine off and the particles that were going out radially from the bottom of the engine fell all the way out over the horizon, and when I shut the engine off, they just raced out over the horizon and instantaneously disappeared, you know, just like it had been shut off for a week. That was remarkable. I'd never seen that. I'd never seen anything like that. And logic says, yes, that's the way it ought to be there, but I hadn't thought about it and I was surprised."]

How does this fit in with the no crater theory?

Originally posted by FoosM

Where is the evidence that this happened?
In the transcripts? On the ground? In the videos?

the two pictures I linked to show the buckling of the nozzle quite well.

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM

Where is the evidence that this happened?
In the transcripts? On the ground? In the videos?

the two pictures I linked to show the buckling of the nozzle quite well.

I can see the buckle.
I cant see any evidence that it was due to it hitting against the ground.
And why would it not be in the transcripts?