tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
You guys got justugh on your side, that should effectively end the thread...
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'.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
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 dustThe 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
You didn't check that link I posted, did you?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
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 thereYou 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.
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.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
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.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
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.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
lol go back to sleepI 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.
Can't. It's almost noon here, and the middle of my working day. I will tonight, though.lol go back to sleep