|
Post by LunarOrbit on Feb 19, 2010 13:14:41 GMT -4
The Mythbusters used powdered non-dairy creamer to cause a huge explosion. I think they also tried it on a smaller scale with other powders, but I don't remember if talc was one of them.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 19, 2010 14:39:29 GMT -4
The "talc" I bought most recently isn't. It's cornstarch with scent, apparently. There's some explanation involved on the packaging, I think, but I don't remember it.
|
|
|
Post by rob260259 on Feb 19, 2010 16:33:20 GMT -4
Or if anyone has done any calculations about the force per square meter of the LM engine ejecta vs. the crush strength of the regolith, that might also be an interesting approach to answer this objection. Well, our 'friend' from DownUnder JW did some calculations. Actually, he claims gravity is 216 times less on the moon. Seems he equates mass and weight. www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYn6dYv6ZFEHow about that...
|
|
vq
Earth
What time is it again?
Posts: 129
|
Post by vq on Feb 19, 2010 22:15:48 GMT -4
Well, our 'friend' from DownUnder JW did some calculations. Actually, he claims gravity is 216 times less on the moon. Seems he equates mass and weight. www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYn6dYv6ZFEHow about that... I do not think he claims gravity is 216 times less on the moon, he claims that a given air pressure will move a rock weighing 216 times as much on the moon as opposed to earth. The number of bad assumptions made in reaching that conclusion is staggering, particularly this his theory would actually be reasonably easy to test at least approximately. He uses a thrust value of 3000 lbf for the DPS at landing; wouldn't it be more like half of that? Any idea where he got that 3000 lbf number?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Feb 20, 2010 0:35:34 GMT -4
He uses a thrust value of 3000 lbf for the DPS at landing; wouldn't it be more like half of that? Any idea where he got that 3000 lbf number? 3,000 lbf is approximately correct.
|
|
|
Post by spacedog on Feb 21, 2010 10:37:47 GMT -4
Geologist Tom Gold maintained right up until July 1969 that the lunar surface would be too fine and loose to support the LM and the astronauts, even though there was ample photographic evidence from the Surveyor program that the lunar regolith was compact and reasonably rigid. Naturally he therefore believed the engine would dig a huge crater that would engulf the craft entirely. Was there a recovery strategy should that have happened? Or would it have been game over?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Feb 21, 2010 11:36:30 GMT -4
It wasn't even considered aserious proposition by the time Apollo 11 touched down. Thomas Gold was a distinct minority, and NASA had already sent the Surveyor probes to determine if the surface could support a landing craft maing a soft, rocket-supported landing. They said it could, so they went ahead on the basis of their results. The reason for Gold's stubborn insistence that the surface would not support the craft despite the ample evidence to the contrary is a mystery, at least to me.
|
|
|
Post by spacedog on Feb 21, 2010 12:01:12 GMT -4
It wasn't even considered aserious proposition by the time Apollo 11 touched down. Thomas Gold was a distinct minority, and NASA had already sent the Surveyor probes to determine if the surface could support a landing craft maing a soft, rocket-supported landing. They said it could, so they went ahead on the basis of their results. The reason for Gold's stubborn insistence that the surface would not support the craft despite the ample evidence to the contrary is a mystery, at least to me. I take it he did not continue to insist on this after the landings. If he had been right, I think the transcript of the radio communications would have to be edited before public release.
|
|
|
Post by Glom on Feb 21, 2010 12:47:43 GMT -4
They could always have initiated an abort. The descent stage would sink first giving the crew time to react and get the ascent stage away.
Was Tom Gold the one who advocated the abiotic theory of oil and gas production?
|
|
|
Post by captain swoop on Feb 21, 2010 14:00:26 GMT -4
It wasn't even considered aserious proposition by the time Apollo 11 touched down. Thomas Gold was a distinct minority, and NASA had already sent the Surveyor probes to determine if the surface could support a landing craft maing a soft, rocket-supported landing. They said it could, so they went ahead on the basis of their results. The reason for Gold's stubborn insistence that the surface would not support the craft despite the ample evidence to the contrary is a mystery, at least to me. I take it he did not continue to insist on this after the landings. If he had been right, I think the transcript of the radio communications would have to be edited before public release. How would they have 'edited' the communications picked up other than by NASA?
|
|
|
Post by spacedog on Feb 21, 2010 15:23:47 GMT -4
How would they have 'edited' the communications picked up other than by NASA? I guess I should have expected an answer like that at a board for arguing with conspiracy theorists. I'm just saying there would probably have been a lot of swearing.
|
|
|
Post by spacedog on Feb 21, 2010 15:25:08 GMT -4
They could always have initiated an abort. The descent stage would sink first giving the crew time to react and get the ascent stage away. That would be frustrating. To be that close, and yet
|
|
|
Post by chew on Feb 21, 2010 17:20:42 GMT -4
They could always have initiated an abort. The descent stage would sink first giving the crew time to react and get the ascent stage away. That would be frustrating. To be that close, and yet The NASA Administrator told the Apollo 11 crew to not take any chances and to abort if they needed to and he would put them on the next mission to the Moon. He also told that to the Apollo 12 crew. Unfortunately, he didn't tell that to the Apollo 13 crew.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 21, 2010 17:48:02 GMT -4
I'm just saying there would probably have been a lot of swearing. Ah, the hazards of live broadcast.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 21, 2010 21:16:51 GMT -4
That would be frustrating. To be that close, and yet The NASA Administrator told the Apollo 11 crew to not take any chances and to abort if they needed to and he would put them on the next mission to the Moon. He also told that to the Apollo 12 crew. Unfortunately, he didn't tell that to the Apollo 13 crew. Can you reference that please?
|
|