|
Post by margamatix on Oct 9, 2005 17:21:28 GMT -4
[ Wow! Now that's a classic! I may just make that little gem my signature. . I would be grateful if you did.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Oct 9, 2005 16:39:25 GMT -4
Only in an atmosphere. There needs to be something against which the thrust can act. Otherwise it would simply dissipate without any braking effect. That's how rockets work.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Oct 9, 2005 16:11:48 GMT -4
I just want to ask a few questions question about the appearance of the rocket exhausts in the photograph referred to by the OP- AS11-40-5921I see that there is no discolouration to the rocket exhausts- this contrasts with every other exhaust system I have ever seen, although I have never seen an exhaust system on the moon. Is this because there is no atmosphere on the moon? When the module descended, braking by firing its rockets, what did the thrust from these rockets react against, if there is no atmosphere?
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Oct 9, 2005 14:16:54 GMT -4
Kaysing's assertion may or may not be true. But even if it was, so what? He was a crackpot who greatly overrepresented his involvement in and understanding of the Apollo program. Why should Aldrin bother to appear with him? To satisfy conspiracy nuts, who would have just dismissed what he said if he did appear? I don't want to focus too much on Buzz Aldrin as I know that he has has his share of problems over the years, but- assuming for the purposes of this post that Apollo actually happened- don't you wish that NASA had chosen at least one astronaut out of the twelve who could enthuse about the fantastic adventure on which he went, and share with us the excitement of the 20th Century's greatest achievement of exploration? Even in the post-flight interviews, when a little triumphalism might be forgivable, they appear to be reluctant to speak at all about their achievement. I once read somewhere that their demeanour was more what you would expect to see at a funeral, and I would say that's "fair comment" Why are they all so reluctant to talk about it?
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Oct 8, 2005 18:18:18 GMT -4
Perhaps you should start with how much less than 1.5 pounds per square inches of pressure should move. Your handwaving won't work here. (not that it has worked anywhere else.) If you can put this message into a form that I can understand, then I will try to answer it.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Oct 8, 2005 17:34:53 GMT -4
Do you have any math to back that up matix? . Only Newton's Third Law.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Oct 8, 2005 17:07:52 GMT -4
Also the rocket plume spreads out quickly in a vacuum as opposed to in an atmosphere. The overall pressure of the thrust on the ground is not very much at all. But surely it would be enough to move a piece of 10mm pea shingle?
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Oct 8, 2005 15:34:30 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Oct 9, 2005 16:48:52 GMT -4
And the craft was hardly "untried". Apollos 8,9, and 10 all tested various parts of the system with 8 and 10 making the same journey to the moon that the 7 following did. Apollo 8 & 10 landed on the moon?
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Oct 9, 2005 16:00:41 GMT -4
the USSR stated that five feet of lead would be necessary to shield space travellers from the effects of radiation. Why, if they believed that to be the case, did they not design their Vostok, Voskhod, Soyuz or Zond spacecraft (not to mention their lunar landing vehicle)with this feature? I will research these missions, but my instinct tells me that the answer will be "because the above missions only flew a few hundred miles above Earth". You have to understand the massive difference between what is claimed for Apollo, and what is accepted as fact in space exploration. Apart from for Apollo, no country claims to have ever sent any man, woman or animal more than 280 miles away from Earth. The USA claims- for Apollo- that they sent men 240,000 miles away from Earth, and that these men landed on another body, took off again and then returned 240,000 miles to Earth. And they did this in an untried craft without any loss of life. Six times.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Oct 9, 2005 15:16:23 GMT -4
I don't mind if you are here on this thread Al, not at all, but PW himself asked that it was kept between himself and me.
Provided that the Administrator understands that this was intended by the OP to be a two-way conversation, and provided that you do not complain that you are being "trolled" on this specific thread, then as far as I'm concerned, you are welcome.
The point I was making with my drawing- which was posted onto a thread which was "chat-room-like" at the time, and was therefore meant to be tongue-in-cheek, was that the USSR stated that five feet of lead would be necessary to shield space travellers from the effects of radiation.
And I believe them.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Oct 9, 2005 14:47:52 GMT -4
I just saw a Boeing 737 fly over my house, and that didn't seem to have any landing gear either. So your design has retractable undercarriage? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Yes- stranding astronauts on the moon would be dreadful, but to get around this problem, I wouldn't really send it to the moon- simply pretend to. I would fake the whole lot at some air force base somewhere. Just as well: you'd have a job getting that much lead off the ground at all. Thing is, no-one (worth mentioning) would believe you'd done anything other than fake it. What part of Like peterb, I'd like to just keep this to me and him, did you not understand?
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Oct 9, 2005 13:07:12 GMT -4
I was wanting to explore your reasonings for it. For example, you didn't give it any landing gear, so it seems to have to land on the engine bells themselves. I just saw a Boeing 737 fly over my house, and that didn't seem to have any landing gear either. . What happens if you damage an engine bell on landing. Your design also appears to have the entire module as one piece, so wouldn't it be possible to strand the astronauts with this design if you damged the engines? Yes- stranding astronauts on the moon would be dreadful, but to get around this problem, I wouldn't really send it to the moon- simply pretend to. I would fake the whole lot at some air force base somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Oct 9, 2005 3:54:20 GMT -4
That's quite neat, and as plausible as anything else, although I included some astronauts to give a sense of scale. What is the point you would like to make?
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Oct 1, 2005 16:36:01 GMT -4
You are quite right. My argument extends no further than to say "I've got eyes".
|
|