|
Post by trebor on Jan 28, 2012 18:45:04 GMT -4
trebor i would love to see your calculations on how much pressure would have been exerted on the regolith by the lem rocket exhaust from 2 feet away. until then "There isn't one because the surface was never exposed to 1080 pounds of thrust per square foot." carries no weight The descent engine was not capable of producing 1080 pounds of thrust per square foot. Not even at full throttle.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Jan 28, 2012 18:59:37 GMT -4
1080 pounds per square foot was attempt to account for 1/6th gravity... Why don't you try to start with figures that actually match reality and continue from there.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Jan 28, 2012 19:07:53 GMT -4
trebor these figure work just fine By all means try to demonstrate this. So far all we have had is you making up figures for assumed reasons which you do not justify.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jan 28, 2012 19:15:48 GMT -4
tedward "Start with the bell and the benefits of its design maybe? From that and the engine you have derived the pressure, you can show that in your own workings out? Yes?" what difference or significance does any of that make? opposite and equal, 3,000 pounds up, 3,000 pounds down. it takes 3000 pounds of pressure to support 3000 pounds of matter. divide pressure by a specific area, gives you pressure per area. I illustrated 2 distinctly separate ways to evaluate the pressure or FORCE from the exhaust as proposed to be real in the EAGLE landing story. Then demonstrate the process start to finish. Does the bell have any effect on the way the system works? I don't know, so asking.
|
|
|
Post by chew on Jan 28, 2012 19:16:53 GMT -4
because of the impingement of the 1191 F supersonic exhaust by the surface of the moon, the truer value for the pounds of pressure is significantly higher then stated. Bwahahahaha! Dude, get an education.
|
|
|
Post by chew on Jan 28, 2012 19:21:11 GMT -4
a vacuum is man made phenomenon, we can provide a force to move matter, if it is done to an enclosed area, the area may be voided of matter, this void can not suck anything into it to stabilize with its surroundings, it can not provide any exchange of energy to move anything. surrounding matter will move into the void because of internal pressure to expand. there is no vacuum in space. it is just void of matter. and if space scientists use vacuum to mean space they would be wrong. Stundied!
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Jan 28, 2012 19:30:30 GMT -4
Perhaps instead of long winded and aimless explanations you could demonstrate that the engine would have produced a larger crater than it did.
|
|
|
Post by chew on Jan 28, 2012 19:35:11 GMT -4
divide pressure by a specific area, gives you pressure per area. No, that gives you a unit of measure no scientist or engineer in the world works with. Divide force by area and you get pressure. Good lord, man. Learn something!
|
|
|
Post by chew on Jan 28, 2012 19:48:18 GMT -4
then lets pretend that it takes a gas moving at 10 mph to start the particles moving, now make FORCE equal to a 10 mph. Bwahahahaha. No, dude, no. Learn the units. Learn what force is.
|
|
|
Post by chew on Jan 28, 2012 19:50:03 GMT -4
chew "Bwahahahaha! Dude, get an education." why? Because you are screwing up your units like a 1st grader.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Jan 28, 2012 20:02:41 GMT -4
the EAGLE could not have actually landed with the rocket engine running because of this back pressure. Why not? Here is a video of a rocket powered Lander touching down with the engine running: www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL2suXb4DdoIt seemed to have no trouble. And that is with earth's atmosphere helping to contain the engine exhaust gasses as well. A quick question:, are you saying that Lunokhod 1 and 2 were also hoaxed then? chew "Bwahahahaha! Dude, get an education." why? I suspect it is due to your complete inability to tell the difference between force and pressure. Much like your inability to tell the difference between heat and temperature
|
|
|
Post by twik on Jan 28, 2012 20:16:09 GMT -4
Reason 3c ever try to take a water hose and push it toward a surface. depending on the pressure of the material being ejected, you can only get "so" close to the surface, that's because of the back pressure. do you imagine it is any different with a rocket engine? the EAGLE could not have actually landed with the rocket engine running because of this back pressure. exhaust gas is a flow of material being ejected, what happens when this flow is compressed? (hint...pushes back) this error is probably why on future fantasy flights they made an adjustment and proclaimed that they cut the rocket engines before touchdowns, changing the story, they preferred to have you believe that the lems fell on to the surface of the moon. chew "Bwahahahaha! Dude, get an education." why? So, you're saying that a jet- (or rocket-) powered machine cannot land with its jets exerting a force downwards, because the "backpressure" would be so strong as to keep it from landing? How do you explain a Harrier jet landing? Or those cool newsreels of the humans flying using jetpacks?
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jan 28, 2012 22:08:06 GMT -4
Reason 3c ever try to take a water hose and push it toward a surface. depending on the pressure of the material being ejected, you can only get "so" close to the surface, that's because of the back pressure. do you imagine it is any different with a rocket engine? the EAGLE could not have actually landed with the rocket engine running because of this back pressure. exhaust gas is a flow of material being ejected, what happens when this flow is compressed? (hint...pushes back) this error is probably why on future fantasy flights they made an adjustment and proclaimed that they cut the rocket engines before touchdowns, changing the story, they preferred to have you believe that the lems fell on to the surface of the moon. Absolutely stunning in the level of desperation. Playdor, you have been busy while on vacation. To bad you didn't learn not to reason by analogy. What is the measure of " 'so' close" when dealing with a water jet from a hose. One meter, one foot, one inch...? Why does your analogy matter to gaseous exhaust from the LM engine in a vacuum? And yes it is a vacuum, so don't use that as your tangent to avoid the question.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jan 29, 2012 0:49:35 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by twik on Jan 29, 2012 1:16:20 GMT -4
twik so you have never heard of back pressure and you think i made it up or is it that you believe rocket engine exhaust is the exception to the phenomenon? please be specific Yes, I have heard of back pressure. However, you're the first person who has suggested that it is insurmountable. How does a Harrier land, if it cannot be manipulated so that the weight of the vehicle exceeds any upward force?
|
|