Landing on the moon...

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Landing on the moon...

Posted: 1/18/2006 1:40:55 PM EDT

First: I do believe we went to the moon, and landed there, etc.

Second: I have a question about why the lunar landing module did not kick up debris at a greater rate??

The engine had something like 7000hp worth of thrust blowing down on the surface of the moon and yet the top layer was barely disturbed. Why? Especially in comparison to the amount of dust displaced when the astronauts stepped on the same ground.

Ideas??

Again, let me state that I believe we landed on the moon with our astronauts, but I am perplexed at the non-displacing thrust from the lunar module.

Posted: 1/18/2006 1:42:42 PM EDT

[#1]

I don't know...I wasn't there.

But I know some guys were.

Posted: 1/18/2006 1:42:57 PM EDT

[#2]

I would hazard a guess that the lack of atmosphere prevents drag on the particles so they fall down faster and it just seems that there is little disturbance.

Considering that during scuba diving particles hang around A LOT longer if you stir things up.

Posted: 1/18/2006 1:44:01 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
I would hazard a guess that the lack of atmosphere prevents drag on the particles so they fall down faster and it just seems that there is little disturbance.

+1

Posted: 1/18/2006 1:44:44 PM EDT

[#4]

no atmospere, no wind resistance, and if I'm not mistaken the thrusters used on the return module were very high. like above the door to the ladder

Posted: 1/18/2006 1:44:54 PM EDT

[#5]

Duh! We didn't really go to the moon. It was all filmed in a studio at area 51.

Posted: 1/18/2006 1:45:08 PM EDT

[#6]

I wanted to say ask a space shuttle door gunner but that was before the space shuttle. Were there moon lander door gunners ya think???

Posted: 1/18/2006 1:47:44 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I would hazard a guess that the lack of atmosphere prevents drag on the particles so they fall down faster and it just seems that there is little disturbance.

+1

How do things 'fall down faster' when there's less gravity?

Posted: 1/18/2006 1:48:25 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
First: I do believe we went to the moon, and landed there, etc.

Second: I have a question about why the lunar landing module did not kick up debris at a greater rate??

The engine had something like 7000hp worth of thrust blowing down on the surface of the moon and yet the top layer was barely disturbed. Why? Especially in comparison to the amount of dust displaced when the astronauts stepped on the same ground.

Ideas??

Again, let me state that I believe we landed on the moon with our astronauts, but I am perplexed at the non-displacing thrust from the lunar module.

You were watching the National Geographic channel weren't you

I wanna smack those damn moonlanding hoax nut jobs

Posted: 1/18/2006 1:50:36 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I would hazard a guess that the lack of atmosphere prevents drag on the particles so they fall down faster and it just seems that there is little disturbance.

+1

How do things 'fall down faster' when there's less gravity?

I was waiting for that one

If you drop a feather and a rock from the same height in the yard, air resistance will prevent the feather from hitting at the same time as the rock.

Same objects, same height in a vacuum (lack of atmosphere) and they hit at the same time.

Posted: 1/18/2006 1:51:39 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
no atmospere, no wind resistance, and if I'm not mistaken the thrusters used on the return module were very high. like above the door to the ladder

www.panoramas.dk/fullscreen3/apollo_lm.jpg

What's that huge downward-pointing funnel about a foot from the ground at the center of the lander?

Posted: 1/18/2006 1:54:39 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

I was waiting for that one

If you drop a feather and a rock from the same height in the yard, air resistance will prevent the feather from hitting at the same time as the rock.

Same objects, same height in a vacuum (lack of atmosphere) and they hit at the same time.

Gotcha, I took a physics class.....once.

I do, however, believe we landed on the moon.

Posted: 1/18/2006 1:54:48 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I would hazard a guess that the lack of atmosphere prevents drag on the particles so they fall down faster and it just seems that there is little disturbance.

+1

How do things 'fall down faster' when there's less gravity?

The acceleration due to gravity is less, so in a vaccuum things in a 1/6G environment (moon) will fall slower - true.

However, when we consider things like dust, it doesn't fall at the rate dictated by gravity when there is an atmosphere -- air makes it fall MUCH slower, or even not at all if there are air currents and the particles are small. Sort of like someone mentioned with scuba diving -- stir up a patch of mud and it hangs around for ages -- wouldn't if there were no water there ...

Posted: 1/18/2006 1:54:57 PM EDT

[#13]

The dust up there is like talcum powder, it just compacts and stays in place after the initial blast.

Posted: 1/18/2006 1:55:11 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I would hazard a guess that the lack of atmosphere prevents drag on the particles so they fall down faster and it just seems that there is little disturbance.

+1

How do things 'fall down faster' when there's less gravity?

Everything will fall at the same rate because it is a vacume. There is no air to resist a falling object. For example on earth you can drop someone with a prachute and a piano at the same time. Obviously the piano will land quicker that the guy hanging from the parachute. On the moon both will hit the ground at the same time. I would also imagine that on the moon a helium balaoon wouldn't rise or float, it would hit the ground as hard as a hammer.

Posted: 1/18/2006 1:57:43 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
no atmospere, no wind resistance, and if I'm not mistaken the thrusters used on the return module were very high. like above the door to the ladder

www.panoramas.dk/fullscreen3/apollo_lm.jpg

That looks like a science fair project or something we would have built at our Klub Houz as kids.

Staples, tar paper, metallic foil.

Would you get in that thing to ride to the moon?

Posted: 1/18/2006 1:58:07 PM EDT

[#16]

From Bad Astronomy:

Bad: The next argument presented on the show deals with the lunar dust. As the lander descended, we clearly see dust getting blown away by the rocket. The exhaust should have blown all the dust away, yet we can clearly see the astronauts' footprints in the dust mere meters from the lander. Obviously, when NASA faked this they messed it up.

Good: Once again, the weird alien environment of the Moon comes to play. Imagine taking a bag of flour and dumping it onto your kitchen floor (kids: ask your folks first!). Now bend over the pile, take a deep breath, and blow into it as hard as you can. Poof! Flour goes everywhere. Why? Because the momentum of your breath goes into the flour, which makes it move. But note that the flour goes up, and sideways, and aloft into the air. If you blow hard enough, you might see little curlicues of air lifting the flour farther than your breath alone could have, and doing so to dust well outside of where your breath actually blew.

That's the heart of this problem. We are used to air helping us blow things around. The air itself is displaced by your breath, which pushed on more air, and so on. On the Earth, your breath might blow flour that was dozens of centimeters away, even though your actual breath didn't reach that far. On the Moon, there is no air. The only dust that gets blown around by the exhaust of the rocket (which, remember, isn't nearly as strong as the HBs claim) is the dust physically touched by the exhaust, or dust hit by other bits of flying dust. In the end, only the dust directly under or a bit around the rocket was blown out by the exhaust. The rest was left where it was. Ironically, the dust around the landing site was probably a bit thicker than before, since the dust blown out would have piled up there.

Posted: 1/18/2006 1:59:46 PM EDT

[#17]

planet earth is blue, and there's nothing I can do.

Posted: 1/18/2006 2:00:49 PM EDT

[#18]

Edit; Tomislav beat me to it

All the hoax bullshit debunked, and lots of good info;
badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#crater

This particular issue;

...Now here comes a little bit of math: the engine nozzle was about 54 inches across (from the Encyclopaedia Astronautica), which means it had an area of 2300 square inches. That in turn means that the thrust generated a pressure of only about 1.5 pounds per square inch! That's not a lot of pressure. Moreover, in a vacuum, the exhaust from a rocket spreads out very rapidly. On Earth, the air in our atmosphere constrains the thrust of a rocket into a narrow column, which is why you get long flames and columns of smoke from the back of a rocket. In a vacuum, no air means the exhaust spreads out even more, lowering the pressure. That's why there's no blast crater! Three thousand pounds of thrust sounds like a lot, but it was so spread out it was actually rather gentle.

Posted: 1/18/2006 2:03:01 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
First: I do believe we went to the moon, and landed there, etc.

Second: I have a question about why the lunar landing module did not kick up debris at a greater rate??

The engine had something like 7000hp worth of thrust blowing down on the surface of the moon and yet the top layer was barely disturbed. Why? Especially in comparison to the amount of dust displaced when the astronauts stepped on the same ground.

Ideas??

.

Because there is less dust on the moon than thought. The moon has not been around for millions of years, it has been around for thousands, just like the earth. Notice the huge feet on the lunar lander? They expected extremely deep dust so they put those huge dish shaped feet on there to keep the lander from sinking into the dust; but it was not so deep after all.

Flame away christian bashers!

Posted: 1/18/2006 2:06:21 PM EDT

[#20]

you have got to be kidding me. anyone that thinks that lander traveled more than 50 ft across a set is nuts. that thing would fall apart if someone inside broke wind.

Posted: 1/18/2006 2:07:50 PM EDT

[#21]

I dunno, but have you heard Sting sing about woking on da moon?

Posted: 1/18/2006 2:08:08 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Edit; Tomislav beat me to it

All the hoax bullshit debunked, and lots of good info;
badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#crater

This particular issue;

...Now here comes a little bit of math: the engine nozzle was about 54 inches across (from the Encyclopaedia Astronautica), which means it had an area of 2300 square inches. That in turn means that the thrust generated a pressure of only about 1.5 pounds per square inch! That's not a lot of pressure. Moreover, in a vacuum, the exhaust from a rocket spreads out very rapidly. On Earth, the air in our atmosphere constrains the thrust of a rocket into a narrow column, which is why you get long flames and columns of smoke from the back of a rocket. In a vacuum, no air means the exhaust spreads out even more, lowering the pressure. That's why there's no blast crater! Three thousand pounds of thrust sounds like a lot, but it was so spread out it was actually rather gentle.

You are REALLY taking the fun out of this thread...................

Posted: 1/18/2006 2:09:44 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
you have got to be kidding me. anyone that thinks that lander traveled more than 50 ft across a set is nuts. that thing would fall apart if someone inside broke wind.

Posted: 1/18/2006 2:10:31 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
you have got to be kidding me. anyone that thinks that lander traveled more than 50 ft across a set is nuts. that thing would fall apart if someone inside broke wind.

What's the matter? Can't comprehend fact?

Posted: 1/18/2006 2:11:17 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Quoted:

I was waiting for that one

If you drop a feather and a rock from the same height in the yard, air resistance will prevent the feather from hitting at the same time as the rock.

Same objects, same height in a vacuum (lack of atmosphere) and they hit at the same time.

Gotcha, I took a physics class.....once.

I do, however, believe we landed on the moon.

Me too

I'll let everyone know what its like when I get there myself.

Posted: 1/18/2006 2:12:45 PM EDT

[#26]

actually its not just that the moon landing was faked, but in reality the moon itself is fake, we've been staring at a projected image for centuries

Posted: 1/18/2006 2:15:45 PM EDT

[#27]

This fall, while in Mississippi for Katrina relief work, I was amazed by one of the other supervisors from my Company. He was adament that we never put a man on the moon. He seriously believed it was all a hoax.

I found this to be amazing comming from a guy in his 40's who held a Supervisors position. He was so convenced it was a sham he was willing to argue the point for about 20 minutes.

Posted: 1/18/2006 2:20:36 PM EDT

[#28]

There are several reasons.

First of all, the full thrust is to slow the LEM down to get out of orbit. It uses very little of its available thrust to actually touch down. Second of all, since there is no atmosphere, the gasses that come from the engine expand very fast in every direction. Not as much of it would reach the ground as would if there were air to contain the column of gas. The dust directly below the engines is blown away, but very little of the engine's gasses reach any farther along the ground.

Posted: 1/18/2006 2:25:12 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Quoted:
First: I do believe we went to the moon, and landed there, etc.

Second: I have a question about why the lunar landing module did not kick up debris at a greater rate??

The engine had something like 7000hp worth of thrust blowing down on the surface of the moon and yet the top layer was barely disturbed. Why? Especially in comparison to the amount of dust displaced when the astronauts stepped on the same ground.

Ideas??

.

Because there is less dust on the moon than thought. The moon has not been around for millions of years, it has been around for thousands, just like the earth. Notice the huge feet on the lunar lander? They expected extremely deep dust so they put those huge dish shaped feet on there to keep the lander from sinking into the dust; but it was not so deep after all.

Flame away christian bashers!

Here is a list of Arguments Creationists Should Not Use by the answersingenesis.com folks.

Included is the false argument about the dust on the moon.

Enjoy

Posted: 1/18/2006 2:27:37 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
First: I do believe we went to the moon, and landed there, etc.

Second: I have a question about why the lunar landing module did not kick up debris at a greater rate??

The engine had something like 7000hp worth of thrust blowing down on the surface of the moon and yet the top layer was barely disturbed. Why? Especially in comparison to the amount of dust displaced when the astronauts stepped on the same ground.

Ideas??

.

Because there is less dust on the moon than thought. The moon has not been around for millions of years, it has been around for thousands, just like the earth. Notice the huge feet on the lunar lander? They expected extremely deep dust so they put those huge dish shaped feet on there to keep the lander from sinking into the dust; but it was not so deep after all.

Flame away christian bashers!

Here is a list of Arguments Creationists Should Not Use by the answersingenesis.com folks.

Included is the false argument about the dust on the moon.

Enjoy

OOOoooooooookkkkkkkkkkaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy,

scratch that one........

Posted: 1/18/2006 2:36:36 PM EDT

[#31]

I saw a recent documentary on the moon landings and it's scary how many times the astronauts almost died getting to the moon and back.

In pre-flight tests, the rocket engine responsible for getting them off the surface of the moon only fired three times out of six!!!. They went to the moon knowing they had a 50/50 chance of being stuck there!

Posted: 1/18/2006 2:37:07 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Because there is less dust on the moon than thought. The moon has not been around for millions of years, it has been around for thousands, just like the earth. Notice the huge feet on the lunar lander? They expected extremely deep dust so they put those huge dish shaped feet on there to keep the lander from sinking into the dust; but it was not so deep after all.

Flame away christian bashers!

Christian bashers? Who in the hell said anything about Christian?

You're just ignorant boy! Or man. Or whatever you call yourself. Maybe you're an alien since you obviously know a lot more than we do!

Posted: 1/18/2006 2:45:08 PM EDT

[#33]

87

Posted: 1/18/2006 3:09:40 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
Quoted:
no atmospere, no wind resistance, and if I'm not mistaken the thrusters used on the return module were very high. like above the door to the ladder

www.panoramas.dk/fullscreen3/apollo_lm.jpg
What's that huge downward-pointing funnel about a foot from the ground at the center of the lander?

that was uesed to land the thing. not return the lander to the command madule. Look above the astronaut. those are the thrusters used to return. the bottom portion of the lander stayed where it was and the top portion lifted off from it.

Posted: 1/18/2006 4:07:18 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
you have got to be kidding me. anyone that thinks that lander traveled more than 50 ft across a set is nuts. that thing would fall apart if someone inside broke wind.

Exactly. Look at that thing. I mean, it's warped cardboard and foil.

Posted: 1/18/2006 4:16:11 PM EDT

[#36]

Someday this will be settled once and for all when we return and show everyone the stuff left behind.
Maybe the moonbats will shut up then.

Posted: 1/18/2006 4:26:38 PM EDT

[#37]

Remember what happened to the last guy who accused Buzz of lying?

"Apollo moon hoaxer Bart Sibrel finally got a response from Apollo 11 moon walker Buzz Aldrin after several abortive attempts to interview the famous astronaut over the last couple of years. The response for Sibrel was a stiff punch from the athletic 72-year old former astronaut. Aldrin was accosted by Sibrel and a video crew outside of a Beverly hills hotel on Monday, September 9, 2002. Sibrel told Reuters News Service, "I approached him and asked him again to swear on a Bible that he went to the moon, and told him he was a thief for taking money to give an interview for something he didn't do,". Sibrel, who has been arrested himself on one or more occasions, reported the "knuckle sandwich" incident to police with the intention of having assault charges file against Aldrin."

www.dumpalink.com/media/1118149764/Buzz_Aldrin_Punch

Aviator

Posted: 1/18/2006 4:27:37 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Quoted:
you have got to be kidding me. anyone that thinks that lander traveled more than 50 ft across a set is nuts. that thing would fall apart if someone inside broke wind.

Exactly. Look at that thing. I mean, it's warped cardboard and foil.

Some people will believe anything if it lets them make fun of everyone else . . .

. . . what would the chances be of everyone involved in the space program being capable (not willing, but capable) of remaining mum about a lie this big? ZERO! Somebody would get poor in their old age and then they would squeal and be able to point to the right direction to let the cat out of the bag, cashing in on the talk show and lecture circuit. Face it, Uncle Sugar in incapable of bribing that many people . . . especially all the guys who would have worked on the set for the stupid project.

Posted: 1/18/2006 4:31:03 PM EDT

[#39]

Yep, that's the descent engine nozzle, or bell. The engine that lifted the ascent module is at the bottom of the crew compartment, and those thrusters above the doors are attitude thrusters.

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
no atmospere, no wind resistance, and if I'm not mistaken the thrusters used on the return module were very high. like above the door to the ladder

www.panoramas.dk/fullscreen3/apollo_lm.jpg
What's that huge downward-pointing funnel about a foot from the ground at the center of the lander?

that was uesed to land the thing. not return the lander to the command madule. Look above the astronaut. those are the thrusters used to return. the bottom portion of the lander stayed where it was and the top portion lifted off from it.

Posted: 1/18/2006 4:32:56 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
actually its not just that the moon landing was faked, but in reality the moon itself is fake, we've been staring at a projected image for centuries

Projected onto what?

Posted: 1/18/2006 4:33:42 PM EDT

[#41]

Since about 45% of America is part of the rat fuck liberal party. They leak every damned government secret they get their paws on for a little TV time. They love to hear themselves rant like assholes on the tellie. Do you really think they could keep a little factoid like fake moon landings and billions squandered on nothing, a secret?

Posted: 1/18/2006 4:53:29 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
you have got to be kidding me. anyone that thinks that lander traveled more than 50 ft across a set is nuts. that thing would fall apart if someone inside broke wind.

Exactly. Look at that thing. I mean, it's warped cardboard and foil.

Some people will believe anything if it lets them make fun of everyone else . . .

. . . what would the chances be of everyone involved in the space program being capable (not willing, but capable) of remaining mum about a lie this big? ZERO! Somebody would get poor in their old age and then they would squeal and be able to point to the right direction to let the cat out of the bag, cashing in on the talk show and lecture circuit. Face it, Uncle Sugar in incapable of bribing that many people . . . especially all the guys who would have worked on the set for the stupid project.

After filming, they doped up most of the help on synthetic drugs the gummit made and sent them to the jungles of Vietnam to never return. They were made a lesson to those that didn't go to keep quiet. Besides, if anyone were going to rat out the project, the gummit would know as they can read your thoughts, right through the tin foil hat so don't bother with that one.

Posted: 1/18/2006 5:02:28 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
Quoted:
actually its not just that the moon landing was faked, but in reality the moon itself is fake, we've been staring at a projected image for centuries

Projected onto what?

I dunno, but I'm pretty sure it's Bush's fault

Posted: 1/18/2006 7:01:55 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
Quoted:
actually its not just that the moon landing was faked, but in reality the moon itself is fake, we've been staring at a projected image for centuries

Projected onto what?

Onto the Moon of course!

edit: or maybe the Death Star

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Landing on the moon...

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us