Rehashing moon mentalness

a reply to: Discotech

Hydrogen atoms colliding to form helium.

It's not like regular oxygen combustion.

How do you generate thrust in a vacuum?

a reply to: toysforadults

1) You are talking about Fusion, thats not the same or in anyway related to your question, unless you are being purposefully obtuse, totally just getting the feeling you are trolling.
2) I explained how you generate thrust in a vacuum, go and read some physics of what would happen if you have a high pressure gas in a chamber that has a hole leading to vacuum. You do not push against any media, you are conserving momentum as the gas is able to apply pressure on one side of the system and then escape from the other, ultimately conserving energy and momentum, the gas escapes from the thruster-cone and departs. The rocket moves forwards with equal and opposite momentum.

Again... pretty basic physics. You might do yourself good to invest in a highschool text on the subject

originally posted by: toysforadults
How do you generate thrust in a vacuum?

Isaac Newton's third law of motion - Every action produces an equal and opposite reaction

Let me ask you this, what does NASA have to benefit from lying to everyone we've been to the moon and back ?

It is actually quite funny how much of the so called photographic 'evidence' that they hoaxed it boils down to the believers of that evidence not understanding the basics of photography and how cameras work.

a reply to: ErosA433

What % of NASA images are composite/ edited?

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: ErosA433

What % of NASA images are composite/ edited?

Depends upon what you mean by composite or edited, it is a loaded question

If you mean, how much of the images are raw data, direct from the CCDs or film scans... Then I don't know, you can probably find some direct drum scans of films from that era, CCDs don't output images directly either, they output arrays of numbers representing electrons converted into ADC bins. The image is then built based on black being zero and white being a full ADC bin

If by composite you mean, made up of multiple images, again, not sure how many exactly... but the camera frame only covers a certain field of view, often it is extremely useful to mosaic them together.
If by composite you mean, reconstructed colours then nearly all since CCDs do not naturally 'see' in colour. They see in monochrome ADC bins as i said above. Thus calibrated colour filters are typically used on a wheel and exposures taken multiple times and then mixed together to produce a colour image.

Are all those colour images naturally white balanced as though under sunny conditions, then no, BUT there are calibration colour charts placed on most landers and space crafts such that natural colour images can be made.

If by Edited you mean nefariously altered, then id also say, I dont know. BUT what I do know about photography and images is apparently more than most tin foil hat wearers and I am able to identify compression artifacts compared to actual objects of interest. I can also tell what a lens flare looks like, along with other photography artefacts.


its a loaded question because regardless of what anyone tells you, you will basically use it to prove what ever point it is you feel like proving... you are also not at all listening/reading anything being said to you, you are just simply firing of cliques questions that are either rhetorical or irrelevant... im predicting you are going to say "Ah so you dont know... that means i can say what ever i like about the images and it is just as correct as anyone else saying the opposite"

originally posted by: Discotech
a reply to: toysforadults

If we (the west) did not go to the moon then why did Russia stay silent ?

We're talking peak time cold war era, you'd think Russia would have something to say about the matter if it was faked

That's why I believe we went

Never really thought of it that way myself. Makes sense now.

It's easy to believe the true is a lie because it's only an illusion.

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: ErosA433
How does combustion work in space?

The fuel has an oxidizer.

How do you generate thrust in a vacuum?

The same way the vast majority of thrust works in a non-vacuum: Newton's third law.

The rocket's fuel tank prior to igniting the fuel would have equal amounts of pressure all around its walls. However, once the fuel is ignited and exhausted out through the nozzle, the force of the fuel exiting through the nozzle needs to have an equal force in the opposite direction (due to Newton's third law). That "opposite direction" would be pushing on the inside of the tank opposite the exhaust nozzle, which in the case of the rocket is "up".

This equal but opposite force pushes upward, taking the rocket with it.

I mean, if your problem is that "there is no air for the rocket to push against to create thrust", then that is a very uneducated view of how thrust works.

It's the same reason a gun recoils. It's NOT like the gun recoils due to the bullet pushing against air resistance, and that air resistance creating the recoil force.

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: ErosA433

What % of NASA images are composite/ edited?

Here's a user-friendly library of all of the Apollo Hasselblad images taken by the cameras carried by the astronauts.

None of these are composites:

www.lpi.usra.edu...

Note: Their are better hi-res scans of the 70 mm Hasselblad images on the internet, but this one is one of the easier ones to navigate due to the thumbnails.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: ErosA433
How does combustion work in space?

The fuel has an oxidizer.

How do you generate thrust in a vacuum?

The same way the vast majority of thrust works in a non-vacuum: Newton's third law.

The rocket's fuel tank prior to igniting the fuel would have equal amounts of pressure all around its walls. However, once the fuel is ignited and exhausted out through the nozzle, the force of the fuel exiting through the nozzle needs to have an equal force in the opposite direction (due to Newton's third law). That "opposite direction" would be pushing on the inside of the tank opposite the exhaust nozzle, which in the case of the rocket is "up".

This equal but opposite force pushes upward, taking the rocket with it.

I mean, if your problem is that "there is no air for the rocket to push against to create thrust", then that is a very uneducated view of how thrust works.

It's the same reason a gun recoils. It's NOT like the gun recoils due to the bullet pushing against air resistance, and that air resistance creating the recoil force.

I feel that the schoolbook explanation for how rocket engines work is a bit confusing. A rocket engine doesn't throw its exaust out. Rather, as the fuel is combusted, it turns into very hot rapidly-expanding gasses. These gasses exert pressure on the walls of the combustion chamber. Now, if the combustion chamber was completely sealed, the pressure would be roughly equal in all directions, and the rocket would not go anywhere:



But with a nozzle at the bottom of the chamber, the gasses are able to escape in that direction. The resulting disbalance in pressure creates a net upward force:



The upward force is created by the gasses pushing on the top of the combustion chamber.

originally posted by: toysforadults

Can we fly outside of earth's orbit???

Many astronauts seem to believe that we can't.

Do they believe we can't as in it's not possible, or do they believe we can't as in we stopped doing it, so we need to redevlop the technologies.

All these astronauts you source as saying we can't today, all believe we did do it.

So your own sources all say the moon landings are real. What more evidence do we need?

The other thing to note when people talk about the Van Allen belt is the following.

It is like any other radiation, it is not instantly fatal, the shorter time spent in the environment the safer, the trip to the moon was almost a direct shot at the thing. It was a very short path through the belts. The inner belt can be bypassed almost completely the outer belt is mostly composed of electrons up to about 10MeV energy. The belt is about 50,000km thick. This can be shielded down to about 20-30 % using roughly 10cm of plastics. For the moon mission, shielding was impractical and so not much actual shielding was present other than the construction materials for the module

Dwelling as short a time as possible in the belt is not a difficult thing to do for a mission to the moon or further. In the case of Apollo, the dosage is was less than the limit that an Atomic radiation worker may receive in a year.


Mankind (and not just NASA but other space agencies too) have sent many probes outside of Earths orbit, doing it with a human payload is a different challenge but there is nothing really stopping it except maybe a plan for recovery etc.

a reply to: ErosA433

Nope. If you even stick your pinky toe into any part of the Van Allen Belts for just a moment, your face melts off as if you're a Nazi opening the Arc of the Covenant.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

They just need to keep their eyes closed then

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: toysforadults
totally just getting the feeling you are trolling.

The title of the thread says that to me.

Who wants to discuss a topic seriously and then titles the thread "mentalness"? Does not compute.

Every topic that can be covered has been covered in the old threads like this one which finally closed at page 672 (with 377 stars!):

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Since it's hard for me to take the OP seriously with the mentalness thread title, it seems this fake NASA reply might be relevant to the "combustion in space" question:

The Letter From NASA About Mentos And Coke Is Fake (But It’s Still Hilarious)


That seems to be about the same level of trolling as the OP of this thread, but funnier. And wouldn't you know some boffins had to study the science behind it which wasn't fully understood until they did:

Science of Mentos-Diet Coke explosions explained

Even though it works I suspect the amount of thrust you get per unit weight of propellant is inferior to alternatives already used by NASA.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: ErosA433

Nope. If you even stick your pinky toe into any part of the Van Allen Belts for just a moment, your face melts off as if you're a Nazi opening the Arc of the Covenant.

Just thinking about exposing your toe to that much radiation should be enough to make it glow in the dark.

a reply to: Arbitrageur
He's a flat earther.

a reply to: toysforadults

You can prove it to yourself - Lunar Laser Ranging experiment , The reflectors are there.

a reply to: Gargoyle91

Aye, actually they do that experiment occasionally for Astro demos at the Uni I am working for

As is often the case with threads like this, everyone chips in with useful information and research, only to realise the OP was a troll/flat earth/EU believer and has long since left the thread (and sometimes ATS iself).

a reply to: wildespace
I don't see EU people any more. I think they mostly died with Rosetta.