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.

 

Moon Landing Hoax Proof!? Fluid Dynamics Expert Opinion Wanted

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 06:58 AM
link   
This a still photo taken from video of the Apollo 16 mission.



It is quite obvious that the dust being kicked up by the wheels is forming a spiral, as it would in an atmosphere.

There is no atmosphere on the moon, yet the dust appears to be interacting with air.

I am not an expert in aerodynamics or fluid dynamics but I know that without an atmosphere, these "trails" that we are seeing would not be possible. The dust trails should trace a perfect parabola in an airless environment.

These are the next two images in the sequence.





I have no belief one way or the other about the certainty of the moon landings or the integrity of said footage of said landing, etc. but this intrigues me.

And even if I am totally way off base, you have to admit it's meat enough that the guys that do this for a living (the moon landing hoax nuts) and make these videos should have noticed this before and made a video about it long enough ago that there would already be countless opinions about it. But they didn't and there aren't.

What say you?






edit on 11-7-2012 by JayDub113 because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-7-2012 by JayDub113 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 07:20 AM
link   
The dust is not forming a spiral. The dust does follow a parabola, but there are several parabolas because the wheels are bouncing, kicking up a new cloud of dust at intervals. You can see this more clearly in a video:




posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
The dust is not forming a spiral. The dust does follow a parabola, but there are several parabolas because the wheels are bouncing, kicking up a new cloud of dust at intervals.


I see what you are saying. The dust is being kicked up by the rotation of the tires and forming a parabola in shape of the wheel. Making it seem like there is atmosphere on the moon. Good catch there DJW001.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 07:52 AM
link   
This video will clear up any confusion




posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 08:43 AM
link   
Also, the moon, contary to popular belief, does actually have an atmosphere.

Its just not one breathable by humans, as it does not contain any oxygen in its makeup (its actually mostly helium and argon).

Also its very thin (approx 80,000 atoms per cubic meter), and therefore considered to be a vacuum for general scientific purposes.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Ok. What I don't get is this.

How come Buzz Aldrin can run around the moon making pretty little footprints everywhere yet the Lunar Lander doesn't have a Blast Crater underneath it?





posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   


on Earth there would be no crater. Tests from lander prototypes did not produce any such crater, and neither do routine landings by military VTOL (Vertical Takeoff and Landing) aircraft. A small amount of disturbance maybe, but certainly nothing like a crater. Bear in mind that Harrier jets are far more powerful than the lunar lander and they don't go around making craters. Furthermore, dispersal of dust on the ground is caused not by rocket exhaust, but by the displacement of air. There is no air on the moon, therefore no significant dust movement. There is however a small effect on the surface. The photo below shows a close-up of the ground directly under the rocket nozzle. You can actually see where the exhaust has caused discoloration and an outward sweeping effect. These effects can by duplicated on Earth using simple rocket equipment.


www.dave.co.nz...

There are answers out there, all you have to do is look for them.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by stevcolx
 


Have you ever thought about just how much power is needed to lift off the moon as compared to lifting off from earth.

With only @1/6 the gravity of earth, lunar lift-off could almost be done with bottle rockets by comparison.

The point being, it may not require enough power to raise dust to get off the moon.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 08:01 PM
link   
I am fence sitting, but open to theories..one way or the other....
It seems to me that there actually was some faked photos done in studio for the public consumption... perhaps i am wrong....
The mix of faked and fact photos adds a lot of distortion to the factual history of the project imho.making a certainty hard to declare.
There are a lot of unanswered questions that are asked by smarter guys than me....who say it was horespucky.
As to the lunar rover, how come it never hits a bump and gets really airborn? Why cant those guys jump? every time they jump it looks like normal gravity here....
The rover, looks to be going fast enough to get pretty high on a bad bump...but never does...??????
I cannot say of a certainty we really went, nor do i deny its possibility, however, i do know we have visitors flying in and outof the atmosphere here at will......as i have seen them....
The truth about the moon lies somewhere between the story we know and the story we are told......the goverment is covering up something, but how to make them tell?
Far more anomalous sights on the moon than should be statistically possible....even ones by astronomers....
Mabe they kicked our asses back home? I wouldnt be shocked....



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by stevcolx
 


Because when they landed, they were throttling down until touch down on the moon. So there was actually very little power being pushed out by the exhaust. I think it was down to something like 20-25% power or less when it landed. And taking off, they used basically a burst of power to get going. There was never a sustained high power blast of power that would have left a crater under the lander.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 03:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


I see what you are all saying. But the fact of the mater is that there is nothing, zilch, nada under the lander to make u think it used rockets to land. No marks at all. It looks like it has been placed there by a crane.

How about all the covert NASA (Nazi Aeronautical Space Administration) airbrushing of objects on the moon in conjunction with the lack of evidence of how they got there in the first place?



When it comes to NASA I take it with a pinch of salt. They have in the past lied through their teeth and continue to lie through their teeth!!



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 03:18 AM
link   
reply to post by stevcolx
 



I see what you are all saying. But the fact of the mater is that there is nothing, zilch, nada under the lander to make u think it used rockets to land. No marks at all. It looks like it has been placed there by a crane.


That's just because you've never really looked hard enough:



history.nasa.gov...

Please mind your language; there is no need for name calling.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 03:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by stevcolx
 



I see what you are all saying. But the fact of the mater is that there is nothing, zilch, nada under the lander to make u think it used rockets to land. No marks at all. It looks like it has been placed there by a crane.



Please mind your language; there is no need for name calling.





What name calling is that?
edit on 12/7/2012 by stevcolx because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
The dust is not forming a spiral. The dust does follow a parabola, but there are several parabolas because the wheels are bouncing, kicking up a new cloud of dust at intervals. You can see this more clearly in a video:


That is a horrible explanation. To make a "parabola" - you do know what a parabola is right? - the dust would have to be kicked upwards and toward the front of the vehicle.. You see the "fenders" there? There is no dust being flung from under the dust-guard. You are obviously no expert in fluid dynamics. I am not either, but I understand basic physics. If you still need help I can make you a pretty graphic that should help you understand. And the video you linked is the SAME FOOTAGE I took the still pictures from. Thanks for that.

Here is a picture of a bicycle on Earth kicking up dirt.





reply to post by Atzil321
 


The video provided was much more informative than DJW001's but it was unabashedly biased, and several arguments used didn't make logical sense.. I refer you to the same picture above, since you endorse that video even as it stresses that the rooster tails we are seeing should only be in a lunar environment.

I am all for open debate, but some of you act like robots. You have already determined what you believe, and you make the evidence fit your world-view, instead of the evidence informing your world-view.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by JayDub113
 



That is a horrible explanation. To make a "parabola" - you do know what a parabola is right? - the dust would have to be kicked upwards and toward the front of the vehicle.. You see the "fenders" there? There is no dust being flung from under the dust-guard. You are obviously no expert in fluid dynamics. I am not either, but I understand basic physics. If you still need help I can make you a pretty graphic that should help you understand. And the video you linked is the SAME FOOTAGE I took the still pictures from. Thanks for that.

Here is a picture of a bicycle on Earth kicking up dirt


You have it exactly backwards. The rotation of the wheels imparts a force opposite to the direction of travel, that is, to the rear. There is also an upward force, as the wheels are round, and maintain some contact with the dust as they rotate. The parabolas you see in the video are exactly what you would expect from dust being kicked up in an airless environment. The photo you posted is instructive: even though the sand is overall much "heavier" than the lunar dust, it is distorted by the wind and the smaller particles form dust clouds.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


I have it backwards?

Read what you just posted, thanks for agreeing with me. The dust trail should arc up and back in the direction opposite of travel. Yes, you are correct. That is the point of the OP with which you obviously agree by your statement. We don't see this in the footage, we see the dust arcing TOWARD the direction of travel, which should be especially impossible due to the presence of the fenders over the wheels.

Then you say the picture I posted is a good example.. Again you are correct, it is an excellent example of the way the dust arc would look IN AN ATMOSPHERE.. the force acting to push the trail forward is the particulates interacting with air molecules. Exactly like the rover.. You basically completely agreed with everything I said, good job.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by JayDub113
 



Read what you just posted, thanks for agreeing with me. The dust trail should arc up and back in the direction opposite of travel. Yes, you are correct. That is the point of the OP with which you obviously agree by your statement. We don't see this in the footage, we see the dust arcing TOWARD the direction of travel, which should be especially impossible due to the presence of the fenders over the wheels.


Did you actually watch the video? The dust arcs back along the track of the Rover, exactly as it should. Now you are claiming the opposite of what you just said: you claimed the dust should arc forward.


Edit to add: Yes, you did:


That is a horrible explanation. To make a "parabola" - you do know what a parabola is right? - the dust would have to be kicked upwards and toward the front of the vehicle..

edit on 12-7-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
The dust is not forming a spiral. The dust does follow a parabola, but there are several parabolas because the wheels are bouncing, kicking up a new cloud of dust at intervals. You can see this more clearly in a video:


I was responding to this.. you said the dust follows a parabola..


To make a "parabola" - you do know what a parabola is right? - the dust would have to be kicked upwards and toward the front of the vehicle..


This was in reference to the fantasy parabola you brought up in your very first reply.. I never said this was true, you did. You are arguing semantics with me to try to say I said something I didn't which must mean you know your argument is weak at best.

And here is your graphic since you are apparently willfully ignorant.




posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Are you brain damaged? trouble following simple chains of thought and logical reasoning?



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by JayDub113

Originally posted by DJW001
The dust is not forming a spiral. The dust does follow a parabola, but there are several parabolas because the wheels are bouncing, kicking up a new cloud of dust at intervals. You can see this more clearly in a video:


I was responding to this.. you said the dust follows a parabola..


To make a "parabola" - you do know what a parabola is right? - the dust would have to be kicked upwards and toward the front of the vehicle..


This was in reference to the fantasy parabola you brought up in your very first reply.. I never said this was true, you did. You are arguing semantics with me to try to say I said something I didn't which must mean you know your argument is weak at best.

And here is your graphic since you are apparently willfully ignorant.



The dust trailing the Rover is following a parabolic trajectory, as your illustration proves. I thought I smelled troll....



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join