|
Post by trebor on Dec 1, 2011 19:42:59 GMT -4
i am not referencing the news conference questions concerning stars. Yes, your quote mining is obvious.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Dec 1, 2011 19:41:00 GMT -4
trebor don't go there because he also added only the earth sun and moon is visible. Because the sunlit earth and moon are vastly brighter than the stars. The dim stars however would be harder to see against the glare.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Dec 1, 2011 19:31:07 GMT -4
trebor that is still 6000 leaf blowers in a 3+ foot circle Do you not read what people post? Gasses exiting the rocket nozzle will diverge rapidly in a vacuum (as has been pointed out to you again and again), so the pressure will be exerted on the surface over a much larger area than the diameter of the engine nozzle (which was about 4 1/2 feet in diameter btw). There is a nice calculation of that here : www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=lZIY2wY93hI#t=127sRalph Rene suggests that 3000 psi from rocket engine equates to the power of 6000 x 1/2 psi leaf blowers Incidentally, be more careful with your units...
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Dec 1, 2011 19:26:41 GMT -4
Bob B. we are going to go around on this issue of stars forever Apparently. Armstrong said they can't be seen, period. False. And even in the mission transcript he specifically states seeing stars. he was asked if stars could be seen from the moon, and he answered that the sky is deep black when viewed from the moon as it is when viewed from cislunar inter-space. And he is correct, the sky would be deep black. i understand they also said they used optics to view stars for navigation. We have been pointing this out to you again and again i really don't care to listen to eye adjustment and special conditions and window shades and not having time or inclination to look. This is your problem. the fact is 2 astronauts negated Armstrong's statement by saying YES they can be seen as well as photographed. And Armstrong did see them, they also photographed them. With stars being visible in the solar corona imagery. this inability to see stars is incomprehensible, This is why it is incomprehensible to you: i really don't care to listen to eye adjustment and special conditions and window shades and not having time or inclination to look.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Dec 1, 2011 19:12:25 GMT -4
Bob B. Ralph Rene suggests that 3000 psi from rocket engine equates to the power of 6000 x 1/2 psi leaf blowers what is wrong with this analogy? There are two things he misses, One is the area of effect, his leaf blower exerts a force over a very small area. The other is the small detail that the engine is running in a vacuum, unlike his leaf blower. And in a vacuum a rocket engine exhaust expands quickly. Edit: Some interesting details here : www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=lZIY2wY93hI#t=116s
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Dec 1, 2011 17:43:56 GMT -4
Bob B. point NEIL ARMSTRONG: "THE SKY IS DEEP BLACK WHEN VIEWED FROM THE MOON AS IT IS WHEN VIEWED FROM CISLUNAR INTER-SPACE, THE SPACE BETWEEN THE EARTH AND THE MOON. THE EARTH IS THE ONLY VISIBLE OBJECT OTHER THAN THE SUN THAT CAN BE SEEN, ALTHOUGH SOME REPORTS SEEING PLANETS… NO, stars cannot be seen from cislunar interspace per this statement from Armstrong. this is very clear statement, there is no exceptions given. Actually there are examples and those have been pointed out to you again and again. For example it was pointed out they were able to see stars in cis-lunar space through the optical telescope carried. In fact they had to. They also saw the stars perfectly well when in the moons shadow. In the first case the optics would block incident light, in the second it would be a lot darker without all that sunlight. Would you like the relevant quotes again?
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Nov 29, 2011 1:07:01 GMT -4
why don't you try and give me an answer as to how dust can be affected from 100 feet? Because dust moves when you blow on it. then explain why the exhaust isn't magnitudes greater at 3 feet? Has anyone said that it is not? Please show why the crater produced should have been larger than it is?
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Nov 29, 2011 1:01:05 GMT -4
LunarOrbit 'magnificent desolation' descent "hot orange plume" audio book - can't give you more than this So in fact he did not see any plume. Now do you have any actual evidence that the exhaust gasses should produce a large orange flame while the engine was running in a vacuum?
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Nov 29, 2011 0:48:10 GMT -4
trebor why do you want to be so abusive Why are you unable to answer the questions? And why do you seem to have such trouble reading the past posts?
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Nov 29, 2011 0:45:32 GMT -4
trebor i think the question really is if the dust is affected at 100 feet how can you prove that a rocket engine 3 feet away does not have a huge affect? This is not an answer to the question. Why should the engine have produced a larger 'crater' than it did? All you have is some pictures of a moon landing hoax without craters. This is false. (as has been pointed out), the pictures show a broad and shallow crater, with fluid erosion marks produced by the exhaust gasses. Did you have trouble reading the previous posts?
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Nov 29, 2011 0:42:38 GMT -4
twik trying to make a point about space and that it does not suck Who has claimed it does? What I pointed out was that the exhaust gasses would spread out rapidly in a low pressure environment. Do you doubt this? my degrees do not matter here they are not space degrees. Why bring them up? ti have thought about going back for physics degree I suggest you don't bother.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Nov 29, 2011 0:36:09 GMT -4
trebor the reason gas expands to fill the available space, is because you are presenting a closed system. I would say the environment of outer space is the ideal example of an open system, we can agree to disagree on how rapidly the stream spreads out. You have stated nothing about how rapidly the stream would spread out. FACT: It did not dissipate enough in 100 feet so as not to affect the lunar dust. No. ASSUMPTION: the force at 3 feet is going to be magnitudes greater than 100 feet. Of course. Now why don;t you show some actual evidence why the 'blast crater' produced should have been larger than it was. As you have 'multiple degrees in science', that should not be hard for you.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Nov 29, 2011 0:21:33 GMT -4
chew i have multiple degrees in science Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Based on your posts here, it seems not. While you are at it can you answer this question: And:
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Nov 29, 2011 0:11:19 GMT -4
what does a vacuum have to do with the absence of a flame? A great deal. there is no such thing as a vacuum in space, it is just the absence matter. The relative absence of matter is a vacuum. But gas expands to fill the available space, which in space is considerable. simply - there is no resistance to the movement of matter. Indeed, there is no resistance to the exhaust gasses. matter moving in a direction does not get sucked in a different direction. if you consult Aldrin's book he talks about a huge orange plume from the descent engine what is he talking about? If he did say such a thing he would be talking about something which did not happen, and is not visible in the film taken during the landing. Why don't you give an actual quote and reference?
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Nov 28, 2011 23:56:12 GMT -4
trebor explain moving dust at 100 feet or was it 300 feet? Dust moves when you blow on it... Now show some evidence why the crater produced should have been larger... Edit: While you are at it answer this question as well:
|
|