|
Post by trebor on Nov 12, 2011 19:59:01 GMT -4
Mylar film Even if it took 3 seconds for the lander to go from 3 feet to land and engine turned off. That is at least 3 seconds of "5000" degrees of exhaust. Please expain how this could not contact the pads and the struts? Where is your "5000 degree" measurement taken, in the combustion chamber? What happens to the temperature of a hot gas when it is released into a vacuum? Here is a hint for you: gasses cool as they expand.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 12, 2011 20:15:46 GMT -4
mutter, I edited the post and then Explorer crashed and I lost it. so quickly. playdor 1) Stick to a single topic, it makes it easier to follow and you look less of a troll doing so. 2) Answer questions asked back, they are there to make you think about what you are saying instead of just repeating what you read. 3) Nothing you have brought up is new, it's all been dealt with before, listen to the answers you are getting 4) Learn the science! For example look at the Gas Laws. A gas' pressure, volume, and temperature are related. When exhaust fires out of the LM engine it goes from high pressure to very low pressure. Since temperature is directly proportional to pressure, what happens to the temperature? Thermodynamics. Investigate the difference between Heat and Temperature, and the methods of Heat Transfer. Next look at laws of motion. If the LM is traveling at 4000m/s relative to point A on the surface of the moon and then fires its engine directly forward with the plume is escaping that engine at 500m/s, how fast is the exhaust plume travelling relative to the same point A on the surface of the moon. Now consider that in doing so the LM slows down relative to Point A. Is the LM every going to catch the Exhaust? Finally try fluid dynamics and find out how a stream of fluid reacts when it encounters a solid flat object in its path. Figure these things out and you'll have answered most of your own questions.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Nov 12, 2011 20:22:03 GMT -4
Even if it took 3 seconds for the lander to go from 3 feet to land and engine turned off. Actually, that's what those 3-foot long probes extending downward from the footpads were for, to indicate when the engine was to be turned off, before the footpads made contact with the lunar surface.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Nov 12, 2011 20:29:08 GMT -4
...but the flow had to be over 2000 psi... In the combustion chamber or at the exhaust? Where are you getting this figure from?
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Nov 12, 2011 20:29:24 GMT -4
Concerning the speed that the terrain passes by in MAG 1122 D. Why dosen't the terrain pass by at the same rate? Why does the rate of the passing terrain seem to have 3 speeds of movement? Without actually having seen the footage to which you refer, two possibilities immediately spring to mind: Was the spacecraft at the same altitude in all three instances? Was the focal length ("zoom" level) of the camera the same in all three instances?
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Nov 12, 2011 20:52:00 GMT -4
Data Cable, I suspect the footage is the 16mm descent film. I know SCF material is frame rate corrected to show the footage in real-time, whereas alot of sources do not correct for frame rate changes and transfer the material at 24fps pull down. Therefore you will see alternate frame rate changes as correcsponding changes in what appears to be spacecraft motion speed changes.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 12, 2011 23:16:08 GMT -4
What is the temperature in a vacuum?
|
|
|
Post by chew on Nov 12, 2011 23:18:37 GMT -4
rocket fuel burns at ?What temperature does RP7 rocket fuel burn? "Liquid propellants including rocket fuel burn at temperatures from 4500 to 5880 degrees F. Wow, that's hot! ChaCha again!" this is the second source for temperature of rocket exhaust Technically, that's not a source; that's a quote that you failed to provide a source for. Sure. I'd even grant you 6000 o F. Now instead of incredulously claiming it should have melted the Mylar, prove using thermodynamics it should have melted the Mylar. Show your work including references and pertinent formulae.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Nov 13, 2011 0:29:44 GMT -4
Why do you say the technology is unproven? How extensively have you researched the technology? How much research have you done on this subject period? I have to wonder about that when you say they only docked three times and did three spacewalks during Gemini.
Gemini 4, 9, 10, 11 and 12 all had spacewalks. Gemini 10 and 11 had two spacewalks each. Gemini 12 had three.
Gemini 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 all involved docking, in some cases docking and undocking with the Agena more than once.
I also wonder if you're ignoring the pre-landing Apollo test flights (7, 8, 9, 10) for any particular reason. Were you unaware of them or are you deliberately ignoring them to make your conspiracy theory sound more credible?
You even refer to "THE landing on the Moon in 1969." Are you aware that there were TWO Apollo landings in 1969?
I'm sorry, but you won't convince me that the hoax theory is true when you make major errors like this.
|
|
|
Post by chew on Nov 13, 2011 0:47:17 GMT -4
I can't begin to prove any point i am trying to make. Then you should retract your claims. If you can't prove it then ask the people on this forum. There is an incredible brain trust on this forum and I'm sure they would be glad to answer your questions. Just so long as it is a question and not a claim, and that it doesn't morph into a claim. "Why didn't the Mylar on the legs melt?" will be met with an answer. "The Mylar should have melted" was met with "Prove it. It is your claim, the burden of proof is on you to prove it." You just admitted you can't prove any of the claims you made so you shouldn't be jumping to any conclusions. We are defending history from people who spread lies. All the questions you brought up, and many more you didn't, have been answered by experienced scientists and engineers. They have done many times in the past. I know where you're going with this but it is a non sequitur. Just because they have lied in the past doesn't mean they lied about Apollo. Key words here are "get away with it". Apollo is too well documented to have been a hoax. 400,000 people built, assembled, and tested the Apollo spacecraft and Saturn V rocket. Not one of them has come forward and said, "The piece I built/assembled/tested wouldn't have worked." In other words, 400,000 people built a working rocket and spacecraft. It would be incredibly easy to prove it was a lie. So easy, in fact, it would have been discovered immediately; it would not have withstood decades of attempts. This is the classic argument from incredulity. "I can't believe it so it must be a hoax". Are you qualified to make that argument? Do you have experience in designing, building, and testing rockets and spacecraft? You need to prove it was a lie before you start speculating about the motive for a lie. Don't put the cart before the horse.
|
|
|
Post by abaddon on Nov 13, 2011 1:16:23 GMT -4
I can't begin to prove any point i am trying to make. That, in and of itself, should tell you something. This is rocket science, and you are clearly admitting that you do not understand it. All i can say is that i feel after looking at the Apollo landings, that there are so many questionable things that it just finally became obvious that the landing on the moon in 1969 was impossible and is just a made up story. You "feel"? Science does not work that way. Science deals in facts and reality. Arguments from incredulity do not hold water, and argument from incredulity is all this is. You are unable to understand it, therefore you decide it must be impossible. Understand well that your cognitive limitations do not apply to everyone else. Your feelings, whatever they may be, carry precisely 0 scientific weight. look you wouldn't be here yourself if you were 100% sure, why would you bother with fools. Because truth has intrinsic value. I, and most everyone else here are 100% sure, because the science behind Apollo is demonstrably correct. Please do not have the arrogance to decide what any members motivation may be to participate in this forum. The problem is there's too many questions and no satisfactory answers. No. There are answers. It is no-ones fault but yours if you are unable to comprehend them. There are correct answers, many of which you have been given already, but choose to ignore. Pick one at a time, and it will be dealt with. A scatter gun approach is not your friend, it is known as a Gish Gallop. maybe there is one huge influence on our thought processes that make the difference here. The only influence at work here is science and reason. answer me this truthfully You have already had truthful answers, they just disagreed with your bias. Would the American government ever tell a false story? Don't know, don't care. I don't live in the US, so your "ebil gubbmint" actions are pretty irrelevant to me. You do realise that the US represents less than 5% of the world, right? Apollo happened. Get over it. Would the American government lie to its citizens Same answer as above. if you answer yes that it does, then all we have to do is negotiate as to how big a lie they would tell and could get away with it. In a word, Watergate. Your "ebil gubbmint" couldn't even cover up a burglary. For an instant... if they lied about the moon landings, how easy do you think it would be to prove it a lie. Fairly easy. They couldn't fake the launch, telemetry recorded from hostile nations, friendly nations and amateurs, the film and photos, the 800lbs of moon rock, the LRO photos, the list goes on. now think of this we captured German rocket technology say 1945 1957 - 12 years to just put a satellite into orbit 1961 - 4 more years to put a man in space 1961-1966 : 16 manned mission / docking 3 times / 3 missions with a space walk. that's it 1969 - 21st manned space mission we land on the moon. the leap is just too great, with too many unproven technologies. The Mercury and Gemini programs were done in LEO to test the capability and iron out any problems building up to a lunar mission. Did you think they were just larking about? Do you think space exploration is without risk? Do you think the crew of Apollo 1 went to their fiery graves to maintain the hoax? they had to lie, Americans would have been crushed if after setting this a national goal, to discover that the goal was not possible may have been a crushing blow to American society. they had to lie. and because they lied they can't change the story. Did they? I think not. Science agrees with me. Present some, or any scintilla of evidence of fakery that stands up on it's own merit. Sorry for your delusion, but the actual evidence says otherwise. I begin to suspect you have seen some poor TV program or website with a good deal of spin that has convinced you that science doesn't work. In which case your computer should vanish in a puff of illogic. figure it out for your self. I have. They went. You most certainly are. However, you can redeem yourself. Here, there are contributors who actually design and build spacecraft, and who will take the time to explain any aspect of Apollo to you in exhaustive detail, with copious references. Do not abuse this resource, these people do this free gratis out of a desire for truth.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 13, 2011 1:48:23 GMT -4
In a word, Watergate. Your "ebil gubbmint" couldn't even cover up a burglary. Heck, there are a lot more minor things than Watergate that the US government was unable to successfully cover up. The fact is, governments fail at keeping secrets for any length of time. It isn't difficult to look at anything in history that a government has obviously tried to keep secret and marvel at exactly how little time it was actually a secret. That combined with actual science should show anyone willing to look at things with an open mind that Apollo could not have been faked.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Nov 13, 2011 1:55:45 GMT -4
Hi, playdor. Welcome to the board.
...The problem is there's too many questions and no satisfactory answers...
Actually, there are plenty of good answers, and I see the folks here have been giving you some. Whether they are "satisfactory" or not depends on how much you expect complex issues to conform to your expectations.
. . .figure it out for your self.
What do you think I've done in my two decades as a space systems engineer?
|
|
|
Post by abaddon on Nov 13, 2011 2:00:27 GMT -4
In a word, Watergate. Your "ebil gubbmint" couldn't even cover up a burglary. Heck, there are a lot more minor things than Watergate that the US government was unable to successfully cover up. The fact is, governments fail at keeping secrets for any length of time. It isn't difficult to look at anything in history that a government has obviously tried to keep secret and marvel at exactly how little time it was actually a secret. That combined with actual science should show anyone willing to look at things with an open mind that Apollo could not have been faked. Alan Turing, Bletchley House, and Enigma spring to mind.
|
|
|
Post by abaddon on Nov 13, 2011 2:05:18 GMT -4
What do you think I've done in my two decades as a space systems engineer? On the one hand, I am also an engineer. On the other, I would give my right leg to be involved in a space project. I hate you. ;D
|
|