Is it possible that NASA faked the moon landing?

zeddd

zeddd

Well-Known Member
lol so this big fukin lrv was strapped to the lunar module with its 10,000 ilbs of thrust and yet there was no disturbance to the dust beneath the module, lmfao
 
SunnyJim

SunnyJim

Well-Known Member
zeddd said:
lol so this big fukin lrv was strapped to the lunar module with its 10,000 ilbs of thrust and yet there was no disturbance to the dust beneath the module, lmfao
Click to expand...
The LRV was folded on the descent stage of the LM (as CB told you on the previous page). The chassis was hinged in three places and the wheels were pivoted nearly flat against the folded chassis occupying only 30 ft cubed. Not 'so fukin big'.

The lunar module didn't produce 10,000 lbs of thrust during touchdown. It was, in fact, producing less than 3,000 lbs as it was nearing the surface from an engine bell about 5ft across. The landing pads were extended before touchdown, leaving a distance between the engine nozzle and the lunar surface of approximately 7ft at touchdown.

There's some math involved, but the bottom line is that the blast pressure of the engine exhaust was only about 1 lb per sq inch when the LM landed. That's roughly the same amount of pressure produced by the astronauts hopping around on one leg; enough to disturb the lunar dust and some scorching, but not nearly enough for the 'crater' conspiracy theorists expect to see.

Too lazy to google?

1st hit: http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/LMcrater.htm
 
Last edited:
zeddd

zeddd

Well-Known Member
SunnyJim said:
The LRV was folded on the descent stage of the LM (as CB told you on the previous page). The chassis was hinged in three places and the wheels were pivoted nearly flat against the folded chassis occupying only 30 ft cubed. Not 'so fukin big'.

The lunar module didn't produce 10,000 lbs of thrust during touchdown. It was, in fact, producing less than 3,000 lbs as it was nearing the surface from an engine bell about 5ft across. The landing pads were extended before touchdown, leaving a distance between the engine nozzle and the lunar surface of approximately 7ft at touchdown.

There's some math involved, but the bottom line is that the blast pressure of the engine exhaust was only about 1 lb per sq inch when the LM landed. That's roughly the same amount of pressure produced by the astronauts hopping around on one leg; enough to disturb the lunar dust and some scorching, but not nearly enough for the 'crater' conspiracy theorists expect to see.

Too lazy to google?

1st hit: http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/LMcrater.htm
Click to expand...
biggest load of pseudo scientific bullshit ive recently read, laughable in fact, I said no disturbance to the dust ...not a f crater lol, even at cooked up low thrust the dust woulda been blown about a bit yet theres none in the pads of the lm and no disturbance at all to the fine lunar dust
 
Last edited:
SunnyJim

SunnyJim

Well-Known Member
zeddd said:
biggest load of pseudo scientific bullshit ive recently read, laughable in fact, I said no disturbance to the dust ...not a f crater lol, even at cooked up low thrust the dust woulda been blown about a bit yet theres none in the pads of the lm and no disturbance at all to the fine lunar dust
Click to expand...
You didn't check that link I posted, did you?

It isn't the best practice to make assumptions without fact-checking.

AS11-40-5921.jpg
NASA Photo AS11-40-5921

All the 'fine dust' on the lunar surface has been blown away by the blast pressure of the engine. See the streaks? Caused by exhaust gas.
 
zeddd

zeddd

Well-Known Member
SunnyJim said:
You didn't check that link I posted, did you?

It isn't the best practice to make assumptions without fact-checking.

View attachment 3515622
NASA Photo AS11-40-5921

All the 'fine dust' on the lunar surface has been blown away by the blast pressure of the engine. See the streaks? Caused by exhaust gas.
Click to expand...
those fine pebbles in ur photo prove what im saying, a blast from a lm rocket would clear all debris or it wouldn't decelerate the lm, its newtons 3 rd law, those pebbles wouldn't be there
 
SunnyJim

SunnyJim

Well-Known Member
zeddd said:
those fine pebbles in ur photo prove what im saying, a blast from a lm rocket would clear all debris or it wouldn't decelerate the lm, its newtons 3 rd law, those pebbles wouldn't be there
Click to expand...
Sure, but what I'm saying is that the thrust from the LM was insufficient to move anything other than fine dust. In this case, there was little to no action/force on those pebbles, so Newton's 3rd Law is irrelevant in relation to the pebbles.

You're against looking it up?
 
zeddd

zeddd

Well-Known Member
lunar gravity is 1.62ms2, to decelerate the lm u need to counter the force of the accelerating mass, even if it only descended 10 m it would have blown the rock clear of all shite, also the trails in the dust u mention go towards the motor as can be seen by the pebble trails ending in pebbles toward the centre of the photo edit and if there are pebble trails there must be fine dust in which to make them
 
Last edited:
SunnyJim

SunnyJim

Well-Known Member
zeddd said:
lunar gravity is 1.62ms2, to decelerate the lm u need to counter the force of the accelerating mass, even if it only descended 10 m it would have blown the rock clear of all shite, also the trails in the dust u mention go towards the motor as can be seen by the pebble trails ending in pebbles toward the centre of the photo
Click to expand...
The trails certainly do no go towards the engine, although some of the pebbles have a shadow cast over them which might look like trails to you. Most of the pebbles didn't move very far, if at all.

I don't mean to be too antagonistic, but isn't what you're contributing 'pseudo-science bullshit'?

Show me the numbers. Good start with lunar gravity, now the rest. I posted it earlier, but it's a long read. If you have a shorter version of the math, I'd love to see it. I'm not unreasonable - if you provide me with clear evidence, I'm prepared to change my position on the lunar landing.
 
zeddd

zeddd

Well-Known Member
use your eyes and your good brain and study the photo u put up more honestly, no need for unpleasantness btw , ok with the risk of boring everyone ... g = G M/r2 this is how u get to the figure of 1.62ms2 then u consider the forces needed to counteract the acceleration-due-to-gravity, so get me the the mass of the lm plus car astronoughts lol and see how much thrust that is...that's what I meant by newtons 3rd law which is the key to understanding this
 
L

lonestarguirella

Member
Yes. Just like the Mars bullshit. Just because it's on a screen people believe it. Cannabis is an Herb from God. The Burning Bush and " I AM." Jesus and the Fire baptism. Hemp seeds are the most readily available amino acid source in the world and could cure world hunger. Its so obvious, organized religon and governments have fucked humanity. Check out my guirella grow post and lets win the war. The Kingdom of heaven is at hand. We could all own our own land and groq our own herb. "Each man will rest under the True Vine which is cannabis. Jesus died for blashpemy because He said Before Abraham was I AM. He healed people with the power of God (He who IS, Existence Himself) grow Herb. st: 11936770, member: 901909"]Do you actually believe they landed on the moon ?? i think personally its a hoax and another cold war with Russia trying to bankrupt them
Could american's be so naive to think that you been fooled all along ??

[/QUOTE]
Yeah, its totally fake
 
Darth Vapour

Darth Vapour

Well-Known Member
To think they were talking to cape like it was next door on the ground lol and if if anyone claims we did not need full thrust to land it would of sounded like this WTF peeps and in a tin can lol woud be even worse

PS this pulls 4 G's 1 G more then anything space VEH

 
SunnyJim

SunnyJim

Well-Known Member
zeddd said:
use your eyes and your good brain and study the photo u put up more honestly, no need for unpleasantness btw , ok with the risk of boring everyone ... g = G M/r2 this is how u get to the figure of 1.62ms2 then u consider the forces needed to counteract the acceleration-due-to-gravity, so get me the the mass of the lm plus car astronoughts lol and see how much thrust that is...that's what I meant by newtons 3rd law which is the key to understanding this
Click to expand...
I agree, there is no need for unpleasantness. To clarify, your first response to me was to tell me my contribution was 'pseudo-scientific bullshit' and 'laughable'. Not a particularly pleasant way of addressing someone. Scroll up and check. I accept your apology.

I didn't ask how to measure lunar gravitational force - you already provided a close-enough figure of 1.62 m/s^2. I asked for the rest of the math you've found to disprove the lunar landing. Surely you've seen extraordinary mathematical evidence that has brought you to the 'lunar landing hoax' conclusion .

'Using your eyes' is not always the best advice, as your eyes can deceive you, especially if you don't know what you're looking at or what to look for.

It's also poor form to ask the people with whom you're debating to supply you with the data you need to make your argument, so I won't be posting the mass of the LM or astronauts, but as I've mentioned a couple times now, they're available. Look for them.

Your reluctance to do any research is surprising for someone so convinced of their position.
 
zeddd

zeddd

Well-Known Member
SunnyJim said:
I agree, there is no need for unpleasantness. To clarify, your first response to me was to tell me my contribution was 'pseudo-scientific bullshit' and 'laughable'. Not a particularly pleasant way of addressing someone. Scroll up and check. I accept your apology.

I didn't ask how to measure lunar gravitational force - you already provided a close-enough figure of 1.62 m/s^2. I asked for the rest of the math you've found to disprove the lunar landing. Surely you've seen extraordinary mathematical evidence that has brought you to the 'lunar landing hoax' conclusion .

'Using your eyes' is not always the best advice, as your eyes can deceive you, especially if you don't know what you're looking at or what to look for.

It's also poor form to ask the people with whom you're debating to supply you with the data you need to make your argument, so I won't be posting the mass of the LM or astronauts, but as I've mentioned a couple times now, they're available. Look for them.

Your reluctance to do any research is surprising for someone so convinced of their position.
Click to expand...
lol go back to sleep
 
zeddd

zeddd

Well-Known Member
wow 5900 kg for lm, 204 for the lunar rover and mebbe 250 for the astronauts, so say approx. 6 tonnes. lol didn't know it was so heavy, so F = m a , we know the mass to be 6000 kg, acceleration is 1.62, so the force needed is 9700 kg of thrust...shit, glad I put down my splif to work it all out...didn't happen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top