|
Post by trebor on Nov 28, 2011 23:54:44 GMT -4
i will concede the crater if you concede the lm ascent engine should have had a flame. Why should the ascent engine have had a 'flame' while running in a vacuum? Please provide some actual evidence for this.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Nov 28, 2011 23:52:54 GMT -4
trebor we are rehashing old ground yes i realize the the exhaust spreads in a vacuum, it does not disappear. if it has an affect at 100 feet it will have a much greater affect at 3 feet. Yes, And it is noticeable that it did from the photos taken from Apollo 11, which show a broad and shallow crater with fluid erosion marks. Now show us why it should have been larger.... some actual evidence would do.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Nov 28, 2011 23:31:06 GMT -4
trebor the debris is going to go everywhere, there will be turbulence. In a vacuum? Why do you assume that? NASA said a problem with vertical landing rockets was the potential of ejected debris causing damage. i believe this was part of the DC-x information. You do know the "DC-x" worked on earth in earth's atmosphere, on earth?
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Nov 28, 2011 23:29:45 GMT -4
raven i have no way to know for sure about the crater Shock. again logic dictates 2-4,000 pounds of thrust in a 3+ foot radius, seems to be a fair amount of force. Have you done the math to work out the force per square foot on the lunar surface? Do try and factor in the rate at which the engine exhaust spreads out in a vacuum. lunar soil was like "powdered snow" Not really.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Nov 28, 2011 23:10:28 GMT -4
>could be that a crater would now show a potential problem for landing. Why would it? >if they made a crater, then questions would arise about the debris that would have kicked back to the lm causing potential damage. Why would any debris be kicked back towards the LM? The force applied by the LM exhaust would rather tend to move the lunar dust away from the LM... unless of course you have some actual evidence suggesting otherwise?
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Nov 28, 2011 22:59:42 GMT -4
there has been nothing posted on this site concerning not seeing stars in space that can explain Armstrong's statement, period. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_adaptionI think this has been pointed out to you a few times. Would you like help with the larger words? ...it would be best to accept i am just going to remain ignorant on this point. It seems so.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Nov 28, 2011 22:52:58 GMT -4
2) crater under the lm Armstrong picked up dust from 40-70 feet Apollo 12(not positive it was 12) had it at 100 feet so logically if you are moving dust at 40-100 feet the magnitude of moving dust at 2 or 3 feet is going to be great. there should have been a crater, and the argument of shutting down the engine early does not apply to A11 And there was a broad and shallow crater. If you were to look closely at the Apollo 11 images you would notice this. even to notion of shutting the engine off 3-6 feet off the moon is nuts, the stress from 3 feet doubles the amount of force on the struts a pilot is not going to take the change of loosing his landing gear. This is not an answer to the question. You were asked for evidence the LM landing gear was not capable of working in 1/6 g. This does not contain any evidence. and while talking about struts, landing in a large crater, could have damaged a strut, could have tipped the lm. Actually landing in a large crater would not be a problem. Landing on a very steep slope may have been a problem, but in that case they should have picked a better landing spot.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Nov 28, 2011 22:28:07 GMT -4
Military had the bomb, they desired to have a delivery system that would reach any part of the globe. Change 'desired' to 'already had'.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Nov 28, 2011 22:23:23 GMT -4
And here is what Professor Van Allen stated about your radiation claims : Specifically those mentioned in the FOX TV show and parroted by you. "The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen I'll stick with radiation dangerous. Radiation is indeed dangerous... depending on the dose. And the length of exposure.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Nov 28, 2011 22:07:29 GMT -4
trebor GEE i thought it looked pretty good If you seriously thought that then you badly need help. And do you have any answers to my questions? I'm guessing not.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Nov 28, 2011 21:53:19 GMT -4
laurel Fair enough i did this originally with a transparency on the monitor. as you can tell i am not very good with photo shop Thanks for the joke.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Nov 28, 2011 21:51:41 GMT -4
WHY don't i believe landing on the moon was possible 1) radiation belts Please provide any evidence they are a significant hazard. Why do you think there should be a large crater? From the photos it is clear there is a very broad and shallow blast crater with fluid errosion marks. 3) no stars in cislunar space Except of course they did see stars in cis-lunar space.. and in fact needed to. As has been pointed out to you again and again. Do you have problems reading? 4) lm design was a disaster Actually the LM design was superb, it had nothing that was not absolutely required. 5) didn't have necessary computing power for lm It had all the power needed. And nothing that was not. What do you think it was not powerful enough for? And do be specific, 6) mylar / kapton film - no damage Actually, this is false. And this is especially noticeable in the Apollo 15 images where some of the film was detached. The 'struts' were designed to work in 1/6 g and were strong enough to do so. Do you have any actual evidence they were not capable of doing this? 8) America could not have a dead astronaut on the moon, but had to complete the goal Actually, I am sure they could have at the time. False, Irrelevant and pointless. 11) footprints without inclusions... Irrelevant as has been pointed out.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Nov 26, 2011 19:20:50 GMT -4
I am not going to look for it, Because actual research is beneath you? ...but about a year before Apollo 11, NASA launched a probe that would relay signals back to earth to simulate communications from the moon. False. Perhaps you should have gone and looked for it.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Nov 26, 2011 19:16:28 GMT -4
...not one astronaut would swear on the bible that they were on the moon, not one! You are aware this is untrue are you not? And your first impression was correct, it was nuts. A pointless exercise in drama to substitute for actual evidence.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Nov 26, 2011 19:08:34 GMT -4
laurel The mountains can be superimposed one over the other, they have exactly the same dimensions. No they don't. Not even close. Try looking at the images you posted.
|
|