Is it possible that NASA faked the moon landing?

zeddd

Well-Known Member
ok for the last time, a mental exercise please answer the following if the lm was dropped from say only 10 m above the lunar surface how much thrust would it take to land it safely, your own maths please
 

SunnyJim

Well-Known Member
ok for the last time, a mental exercise please answer the following if the lm was dropped from say only 10 m above the lunar surface how much thrust would it take to land it safely, your own maths please
Relevance? The LM wasn't 'dropped' from 10m. It followed a trajectory, losing mass and decreasing in velocity until it touched down. You're missing out so many variables to your process. The 'thrust' wasn't constant - your question makes no sense in the context of this debate.
 

zeddd

Well-Known Member
at some point in its descent the lm was 10 m above the surface, so how much thrust did it need for the last 10 metres? simple q imo
 

SunnyJim

Well-Known Member
at some point in its descent the lm was 10 m above the surface, so how much thrust did it need for the last 10 metres? simple q imo
Yes, at some point the LM was 10m above the surface, and the engine was producing under 3000 ft-lbs of thrust.
 

SunnyJim

Well-Known Member
still that would blow a shit load of debris from beneath it leaving only bare rock and scorch marks
Not according to math.

The engine bell was 63in across, with an area of roughly 3100 in sq. If the engine was producing 3000 ft-lbs of thrust nearing the lunar surface, that would make the pressure 1.03 ft-lb per sq inch, or a psi of 1.03. That's less pressure than the average human footprint.

The pictures do show bare lunar surface under the engine bell, and some scorching. The simple fact is that there was insufficient exhaust pressure to move much more than fine dust at touchdown.
 

reddan1981

Well-Known Member
I believe space as they teach it to be false. I don't believe we have even left the atmosphere. I don't believe carbon dating techniques and I don't believe dinosaurs existed. I could attempt to explain anyone of these however common sense would be superceded by indoctrination. The problem is, the system has the manufactured answers already, people are conditioned to ridicule opinion that falls outside the accepted 'norm'. Look at the mess of this fucked world. How long have we had civilisation? How come we are not civil to one another. When you open your eyes you understand what type of a system we live in. You know how to eradicate cancer off the face of the planet? The answer is common sense and the powers that be know this.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
still that would blow a shit load of debris from beneath it leaving only bare rock and scorch marks
No. The regolith has a "sticky" quality that cannot be simulated in atmosphere. Sunny Jim (iirc) posted a pic that showed plain blast erosion under the descent stage.
Your earlier math was bad. 6 tonnes x 1.6 m/s squared makes for 9600 Newtons, not "kgf". Order of ten.
Thus about a tonne of thrust levitates the LM full up. And carves the features we've seen in the "sticky" regolith ... remember how shallow the bootprints were.
 

reddan1981

Well-Known Member
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
I understand theses calculations to be approximations made from 'radio communications'. Where is the original documentation pertaining to these calculations? Also where could one touch view or witness the ORIGINAL video footage of said moonlanding?
 
Last edited:

Dr.Pecker

Well-Known Member
Articles from the Daily Mail? The trashy UK tabloid newspaper?! The next page probably had a riveting piece on celebrity baby names..
You believe what the Russian Govt says.. do you believe everything Kim Jong Un says too. .you do know the daily mail is a tabloid paper just like the enquirer and star
If you scroll down and READ IT or even google it yourself. You would see that they were referring to the moscow times.
 

Darth Vapour

Well-Known Member
Well with all BS aside even today when you look at USA and how they lie or do what ever to pretend there the super power , yet one could only look if this is true then how come they didn't walk korea or iraq a 3rd world country .
and as we keep going back n forth i think honestly with russian presence now in Syria we will see what the super power does i think personally like there fake moon landing they will coward in front of there advisory no need to think there will be a conflict USA will run and hide behind NATO whats the difference between USA and a Bully ??? i know usually when you stand up to a bully they run after they been made
 

reddan1981

Well-Known Member
so now im actually bothering to look into this ive spotted another fantastic piece of utter shite...they saw no stars from the surface of the moon....lol and the pictures prove it ha ha
we live on a flat earth brother, contained in areas of purposefully designed societal systems. Our world view is given to us. Our education system rewards those who can parrot the textbooks, the text books written by themselves. Try and prove me wrong my mate.
 
Top