|
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?
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Nov 29, 2011 1:04:38 GMT -4
"Orange plume" could be considered an accurate description at, and only at, precisely ignition.
|
|
|
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 gillianren on Nov 29, 2011 2:17:29 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? I think he's editing, too. Shall we add Watergate to the list of things you don't know anything about, Playdor? My, but that list is getting long. It doesn't seem to bother you, though; you still know that you're right and people with relevant degrees are wrong.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Nov 29, 2011 2:40:12 GMT -4
chew i have multiple degrees in science Baloney. From your posting history here, and from your inane list of "evidence" mindlessly regurgitated from conspiracist web sites, it is clear you have no appreciable qualifications in science whatsoever. You can't tell the difference between electric current and radiation; you think a gas expanding in a vacuum has something to do with "closed systems"; you tell us that you can't see stars in a vacuum, then claim that the astronauts should have seen stars in a vacuum - which they did, except that you stubbornly refuse to grasp the simple concept that visibility might be affected by different conditions. And that's just a sample of your ever-expanding catalog of cluelessness. You have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about. Don't make it worse by trying to bluff qualifications you obviously don't have. Not that you need such expertise to debunk most of the claims you've been parroting. No, you don't. You're simply repeating the hoax believer's standard cartoon view of science. Your own insistence on ignoring refutations of your claims is especially hypocritical in light of such an assertion. Asserting that your belief is based on the "evidence" implies that you have examined the evidence, but clearly you have not done so at all in most cases, and worse, you ignore countering arguments. So, what is the real reason you cling so tightly to your belief in a hoax?
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Nov 29, 2011 2:57:09 GMT -4
I think he/she is just putting up flak to avoid questions.
Re Degrees, I believe I can get several today for a small fee.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Nov 29, 2011 3:49:02 GMT -4
Not forgetting a dvd has some method of coding and processing on it. Yes, but a DVD will probably look a lot better than most any other medium you're likely to get your hands on. About the only thing better is a Blu-ray disc containing an HDTV version, if one exists. Although DVDs contain standard definition video, they generally use a much higher data rate than broadcasters (especially satellite): an average of 7 Mb/s vs 2-3 Mb/s. This makes the picture look a lot better even though the resolution is the same.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Nov 29, 2011 4:12:55 GMT -4
Yeah, I was fishing for a response from playdor, trying another way. He seems to avoid most questions that are outside his immediate train of thought so wondering if he would pick up on it. Given up now.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Nov 29, 2011 4:38:27 GMT -4
i have multiple degrees in science i know how it works I do not belive that for a second, and I challenge you to provide evidence for such a claim. You clearly know nothing of physics, since you do not understand thermal transfer, rocket propulsion, orbital mechanics, radiation and so on. You clearly know nothing of chemistry, as your reliance on wikipedia articles for information about the chemcial rocket propellants and the like shows. You clearly know nothing of biology, as your unfamiliarity with such things as how the eye works shows. You claim degrees in science and yet dismiss it as some kind of religious fanaticism, and you think McCanney's book is 'interesting' rather than the unscientific bunk it really is. I am a scientist, by qualification and profession, and several others here are as well. You outmatch us only in one way: your amazing, unparalleled level of ignorance of any relevant field. So why are you here, exactly?
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Nov 29, 2011 4:59:12 GMT -4
Do you know how craters are formed on the moon? Bits of space debris have rained down on the moon since its formation. Without air to slow them down, they hit fast -- at least 2,380 m/sec, the moon's escape velocity, and usually much faster. 10 km/sec (over 6 miles per second!) is typical. An object moving that fast carries a lot of energy: almost 11 times the object's own weight in TNT! Objects striking the moon quite literally become super-powerful explosives. They burrow into the ground and release all their energy in an instant. That's why lunar craters look just like bomb craters. Now think about a LM landing on the moon. It isn't firing rocks at the ground, it's firing hot gases. Take your hair dryer and point it at the ground. Do you get a crater? Of course not. You will blow any loose dust around, and that's exactly what happened. Pictures of the ground under the lunar modules do show signs of erosion. On Apollo 11 Neil Armstrong estimated that it removed a couple of inches of loose dust, and in every Apollo landing movie we can see it being blown away by the descent engine. They moved a lot of dust, but they did it with a blower, not explosives. And that's why you don't see a crater.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 29, 2011 4:59:40 GMT -4
Frankly, I'd be surprised if someone who writes that badly could graduate from college at all. No, you don't have to write terribly well, but you'd have to write better than that, surely.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Nov 29, 2011 5:52:11 GMT -4
chew i have multiple degrees in science i know how it works Playdor, you are accusing a lot of people of lying about Apollo. That is, you are attempting to adopt a superior moral position. Don't you see that coming out with blatant lies about your own qualifications completely undermines your position?
|
|
|
Post by abaddon on Nov 29, 2011 5:57:20 GMT -4
WHY don't i believe landing on the moon was possible Then you just don't understand radiation, do you? And why such exist? Why are there no craters under harrier jets? 3) no stars in cislunar space Go outside your home, stand under a street light, then tell me how many stars you see. 4) lm design was a disaster Which part or parts would not work and why. 5) didn't have necessary computing power for lm I write software for a living. I cut my student teeth on assembly language. (8086, 6800, and Z80 for those interested) I actually have the expertise to know for a fact that the machine could do it's job. Do you? 6) mylar / kapton film - no damage Um, that was thermal not mechanical. No. Just no. You are above every mechanical engineer on the planet? I think not. 8) America could not have a dead astronaut on the moon, but had to complete the goal And there are none such. 12 guys went, walked on the surface, and came home. NASA is a civilian organisation. Relevance? 11) footprints without inclusions... top ten was probably enough What is it you think they should include?
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Nov 29, 2011 6:47:30 GMT -4
9) how sure are you that the "space race" wasn't a way for the military to finance the research of rocketry and specifically ballistic missiles technology? The military budget has (sadly) always been far larger than NASA's. Even when Congress drastically cuts back on space exploration, they continue to throw money at the Pentagon. So please tell me why the military would need or want NASA to develop their missiles for them? In fact, the technology transfer has been almost entirely in the opposite direction, with military missiles being converted to civilian NASA use. That includes the Redstone IRBM used to launch the suborbital Mercury flights, the Atlas ICBM used to launch the orbital Mercury flights, and the Titan II ICBM used to launch Gemini. It wasn't until the Saturn IB and V were developed for Apollo that NASA had its own purpose-built man-rated launch vehicles. And they were never used by the military.
|
|
|
Post by carpediem on Nov 29, 2011 7:09:42 GMT -4
my degrees do not matter here they are not space degrees. i have thought about going back for physics degree I for one would still like to know what 'degrees' you have. And which institution awarded them.
|
|