Lunar landing hoax, facts that prove we haven't left the earths atmosphere.

In all of these types of threads - I ask the simple question.

Why has it been proven so difficult to return to the moon.

They lost the plans?

We have better things to spend money on?

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Yes.

There is no longer a good reason to send two men to the Moon for a few days. The risks and costs are too high.

a reply to: UpIsNowDown



We went to the moon. One of my best friends first cousin was an Apollo astronaut, trust me he went into space.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Need to add today's notion of health and safety into the mix.

Back in the 60s we had hopes and dreams which somewhat transcended the dangers involved with travel to the Moon.

To colonize our Moon in any kind of viable cost-effective manner we must first conquer colonization and industrialization of our own low Earth orbit else the prospect is simply untenable at best.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

We have better things to spend money on?

DING DING DING

Have a winner here

Apollo moon program was a scientific mission wrapped in nationalistic cold war politics where proved our superiority
over the backward godless soviets

Once went to moon and proved could do it again the political will to continue disappeared - last 3 Apollo missions
were cancelled, because whu go back and pick up some more rocks

a reply to: Fallingdown

As was said : invent a claim that was made , make it look a stupid thing to say , and Bob's your Uncle :

to you it's proving they went to the moon , and that the skeptics are fools .

Yet all that happens in our eyes is for you to smear your own face with bootpolish .

And if you're really stupid enough to keep believing hogwash , it makes us never listen again to you

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: maxzen2004

The one thing i don't understand is how the lunar module does not appear to have created any kind of significant blast creator or kicked up debris when it took off on its return journey to the command module in orbit of the Moon?

Don't misunderstand me through i believe we went to the Moon, and that the answer probably lies in lack of significant atmosphere/properties of the landing area.

Just would like to have it better explained.

I used to design lunar and Mars landers when I worked for NASA, and this topic would occasionally come up. There are specialists who study this kind of thing. I wasn't one of them, but I can repeat the explanation I was given.

A rocket plume is essentially a well collimated jet of high speed gas. When the rocket plume is moving through an essentially stationary atmosphere (even a very thin atmosphere, such as on Mars) there is a very thin but highly turbulent boundary layer between the high speed jet and the stationary surrounding air. When that jet impacts the ground (either in takeoff or landing) there is an interface where the ground plane, the jet, and the surrounding air all come together at one point. If the ground plane consists of soil or regolith or anything other than a hard surface (like concrete) the high level of turbulence will dislodge the particles of the soil and entrain them into the jet. Once they are entrained into a structured fluid flow, they will scour out the nearby particles and entrain them as well. This results in concentrating the effect of the rocket plume into a constrained volume immediately under the rocket motor and blowing out a crater. In fact, a rocket plume directed onto the ground has been considered as a means of high speed drilling for certain military applications which I won't discuss.

On the moon or other airless bodies, the physics of rocket plume interactions is quite different. In the absence of a surrounding layer of air, there are no turbulence cells where the plume impacts the ground plane. Instead, the high speed rocket exhaust molecules hit the ground and bounce off in all directions. The net effect is for the rocket exhaust to flow out radially more or less parallel to the ground plane instead of digging in. If you watch the videos of the Lunar Ascent Module taking off, you will briefly see these radially expanding streaks on the lunar surface for a second or two until the Ascent Module gets out of range.

Basically, in the presence of an atmosphere, a rocket plume will dig in and excavate, in the absence of an atmosphere the plume will blow off loose material sideways.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: maxzen2004

The one thing i don't understand is how the lunar module does not appear to have created any kind of significant blast creator or kicked up debris when it took off on its return journey to the command module in orbit of the Moon?

Don't misunderstand me through i believe we went to the Moon, and that the answer probably lies in lack of significant atmosphere/properties of the landing area.

Just would like to have it better explained.

The engine on the descent stage of the LM was able to be throttled to only 10% power. When the LM was landing, they throttled the engines back to a low thrust (they had to, or else they'd be moving upward instead of downward). The LM also had 5-foot long contact probes sticking downward from the landing pads. The contact probes told them when they were within five feet of the surface, and it was than that they turned off the engine -- so for the final few feet down, there was no thrust at all.

Furthermore, the lunar surface only had a couple of inches of loose soil on the top; under than was a hard-packed soil that was more rock-like. So the surface dust directly under the engine bell was scoured away (as you can see from the image below) but the surface under that was too hard to be blown away:




As for the acent engine blowing surface dust, that would bit happen because (1) the descent stage (the section with the landing pads) remained behind and would generally block the thrust of the ascent engine from hitting the surface, and (2) there were baffles in the descent section under the ascent stage engine that were designed to funnel the blowback thrust away.

a reply to: ZIPMATT

" yet all that happens in our eyes "

Well I actually witnessed a Apollo launch. Does that count ?

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Cheers, that seems to offer up a modicum of reason.

As the section with the landing pads would indeed seem to prevent engine exhaust from hitting the surface somewhat, especially so considering the reduced gravity, reduced thrust, and lack of significant atmosphere.

a reply to: maxzen2004

Seeing you disregard the same answer worded differently is going to be an a testament to your state of bias....

From Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org...

The highly diluted gas in this layer can reach 2,500 °C (4,530 °F) during the day. Even though the temperature is so high, one would not feel warm in the thermosphere, because it is so near vacuum that there is not enough contact with the few atoms of gas to transfer much heat.

I am not sure I trust the bare skin thing? If the thermosphere is near vacuum, your blood is going to boil anyway?

Because the thermosphere has so little mass and density. Heating the 40,000 Lbs Apollo spacecraft in the thermosphere would be like heating up a 55 gallon drum of water with a pebble with the temperature of 1000c.

Or the other obvious answer if it really is a problem, don’t go through the thermosphere when it is being heated by the sun.

Thought this was interesting?

Thermosphere
en.m.wikipedia.org...

The International Space Station orbits the Earth within the middle of the thermosphere, between 330 and 435 kilometres (205 and 270 mi).

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight

Why has it been proven so difficult to return to the moon....

....We have better things to spend money on?

The taxpaying public began grumbling about the cost not even one year after Apollo 11. Public Interest began waning by the time Apollo 13 was about to launch, and people were saying EXACTLY what you said...

i.e., "why are we continuing to spend money on going to the Moon when we already beat the Russians there? We have better things to spend money on."

a reply to: Fallingdown

You saw a rocket blast off ? From where you were stood you wouldnt have seen it coming back down somewhere in the mid Pacific . That's all it takes to convince you ? No wonder they thought they'd get away withtelling people great BIG PORK PIEs !

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

the cost

Leave this part out of the narrative you are creating for yourselves because it stinks of rat

a reply to: maxzen2004
Your folly, as Neutronflux pointed out, is that heat and temperature are not interchangeable terms.

a reply to: ZIPMATT

With that reply. Is it safe to assume you don't think Rockets leave the atmosphere and there's no such thing as satellites ?

Do you think that all NASA does is spend billions of dollars on launch vehicles just to fake me out ?


That line of reasoning will carry you far in life .


I'm done here have a nice day .

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: ZIPMATT

" yet all that happens in our eyes "

Well I actually witnessed a Apollo launch. Does that count ?

Nobody is saying that rockets aren't launched into the air, that's ridiculous. People are commenting on how odd it is that every single rocket and shuttle takes off in a parabolic curve, and when they are completely parallel or appear to be moving downward the booster rockets detach, while very low in the atmosphere. Then, the shuttle, which is supposed to be basically a glider with a minimal fuel load meant for slight maneuvers, somehow keeps going for many miles upward and eventually *pops* out of the atmosphere. Out of the field of vision for everyone at the launch pad of course, and the water where it falls back to earth is off limits by all boats and planes, enforced by the military.

Yeah, nothing to see here. 😂😂

originally posted by: maxzen2004
Wrong, they used the heat shield for earth re-entry on the bottom of the capsule. The outer materials of the craft consisted metal alloys, I have the blue print.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Heat-Maintaining Materials used on the Apollo crafts:

Several materials cover the spacecraft to protect its inner structure from temperature and micrometeoroids. Specially designed materials maintain temperature balance inside the craft.

The black materials on parts of the LM are heat-resistant nickel-steel alloy, 0.0021072 millimeters (0.0000833 inches) thick. The black sheets absorb heat when exposed to the Sun and radiate to the blackness of deep space.

Not metal foil, these plastic films are thinly coated with aluminum, which reflects the sun's heat and insulates the spacecraft. The thin, gold-colored films are used in "blankets" of up to 25 layers. All of the plastic films protect the spacecraft from micrometeoroids.

Looks like YOU have simply miscalculated how the Apollo missions were engineered towards success and in dealing with all the challenges that you claim couldn't have happened. You are basing your opinions on a lack of knowledge, or a failure to acknowledge the facts.

a reply to: Fallingdown

Is it safe to assume

No.
Question everything in life .
Good day.