Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #616863 > unrolled thread

Apollo 11 Hoax

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Apollo 11 Hoax numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-03 15:26 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 Hoax pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-02-03 16:47 -0800
      Re: Apollo 11 Hoax benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-03 20:15 -0500
        Re: Apollo 11 Hoax pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-02-03 17:39 -0800
          Re: Apollo 11 Hoax jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-02-04 03:39 +0000
            Re: Apollo 11 Hoax pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-02-03 20:28 -0800
              xaoh No uoY noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 19:11 -0800
                Re: xaoh No uoY noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 21:48 -0800
            Re: Apollo 11 Hoax benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-04 17:22 -0500
              Re: Apollo 11 Hoax jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-02-04 23:10 +0000
                Re: Apollo 11 Hoax benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-04 18:42 -0500
                  Re: Apollo 11 Hoax jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-02-05 00:14 +0000
                Re: Apollo 11 Hoax benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-04 18:51 -0500
                  Re: Apollo 11 Hoax jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-02-05 00:15 +0000
                    Re: Apollo 11 Hoax benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-04 20:46 -0500
                      Re: Apollo 11 Hoax jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-02-05 03:14 +0000
                        Re: Apollo 11 Hoax benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-06 16:50 -0500
                          Re: Apollo 11 Hoax jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-02-06 23:49 +0000
                            Re: Apollo 11 Hoax benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-06 19:48 -0500
                              Re: Apollo 11 Hoax jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-02-07 01:38 +0000
                                Re: Apollo 11 Hoax Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 18:16 -0800
                                  Re: Apollo 11 Hoax jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-02-07 04:19 +0000
                                    Re: Apollo 11 Hoax Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 04:44 -0800
                                      Re: Apollo 11 Hoax john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 05:41 -0800
                                        Re: Apollo 11 Hoax Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 06:39 -0800
                                          Re: Apollo 11 Hoax "Antonio Hairball" <bleep@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 19:12 -0800
                                      Re: Apollo 11 Hoax jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-02-07 17:26 +0000
                                        Re: Apollo 11 Hoax Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 09:59 -0800
                                          Re: Apollo 11 Hoax benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-07 17:03 -0500
                                      Re: Apollo 11 Hoax benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-07 16:43 -0500
                                        Re: Apollo 11 Hoax jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-02-07 21:47 +0000
                                          Re: Apollo 11 Hoax benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-07 20:51 -0500
                                            Re: Apollo 11 Hoax jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-02-08 03:50 +0000
                                              Re: Apollo 11 Hoax benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-08 16:58 -0500
                                                Re: Apollo 11 Hoax jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-02-08 22:06 +0000
        Re: Apollo 11 Hoax HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 09:27 -0800
          Re: Apollo 11 Hoax benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-07 16:59 -0500
    Re: Apollo 11 Hoax numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-04 12:54 -0800
      Re: Apollo 11 Hoax Yuri Kreton <invliad@invalid.com> - 2017-02-07 08:58 -0600
    Re: Apollo 11 Hoax numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-04 12:56 -0800
      Re: Apollo 11 Hoax Yuri Kreton <invliad@invalid.com> - 2017-02-07 09:11 -0600
    Re: Apollo 11 Hoax numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-07 15:01 -0800
      Re: Apollo 11 Hoax pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-02-07 15:14 -0800
      Re: Apollo 11 Hoax benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-07 21:05 -0500
    Re: Apollo 11 Hoax numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-09 12:53 -0800
      Re: Apollo 11 Hoax noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 19:28 -0800
      Re: Apollo 11 Hoax pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-02-09 19:41 -0800
        Re: Apollo 11 Hoax noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 19:43 -0800
          Re: Apollo 11 Hoax pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-02-09 19:48 -0800
            Re: Apollo 11 Hoax noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 20:00 -0800

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#617371

On 2/4/2017 2:56 PM, numbernumber1964@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Watch this BBC video before you post again.
>
>
>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52a0Xjuaixo
>


Watch this one is more factual;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrczI9R7tJY

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617457

How do you explain the lack of a blast crater?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617459

On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 3:01:51 PM UTC-8, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:

> How do you explain the lack of a blast crater?

Read the link!

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#crater

"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.

[Note added December 6, 2001: Originally in this section I said that the engines also cut off early, before the moment of touchdown, to prevent dust from getting blown around and disturbing the astronauts' view of the surface. This was an incorrect assertion; it was known that dust would blow around before the missions were launched, and steps were taken to make sure the astronauts knew their height above the surface. Anyway, the incorrect section has been removed.]"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617491

On 2/7/2017 6:01 PM, numbernumber1964@gmail.com wrote:
> How do you explain the lack of a blast crater?
>
If the government says that no blast crater is normal then you must 
believe it. Governments never lie about their activities. That idea is 
only for conspiracy theorists. Politicians never commit crimes and go to 
jail. HardBlow categorically swore to me that is true.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617785

"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 crate!

__________________________________________________________


To land a 30,000 lbs lunar lander on the surface of the moon requires more than 5000 lbs of thrust which would form a blast crater. Are you saying that if you launched a TD-2 rocket that it would not form a blast crater on the surface of the earth? Use some common sense.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617845

fine expiation of force;
the force is at the inside of the nose of the cone,
not at the opening

> 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 crate!
> To land a 30,000 lbs lunar lander on the surface of the moon requires more than 5000 lbs of thrust which would form a blast crater. Are you saying that if you launched a TD-2 rocket that it would not form a blast crater on the surface of the earth? Use some common sense.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617846

On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 12:54:01 PM UTC-8, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> "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 crate!
> 
> __________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> To land a 30,000 lbs lunar lander on the surface of the moon requires more than 5000 lbs of thrust which would form a blast crater. Are you saying that if you launched a TD-2 rocket that it would not form a blast crater on the surface of the earth? Use some common sense.

In the gravity of the moon the LEM weighed only 1/6 of its Earth weight. Read the dang link, all of it! The motor only exerted only 1.5 PSI onto the lunar surface when landing, not enough to create a crater.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617847

a sixth -- always forget about that;
Mars is about a fourth?

> In the gravity of the moon the LEM weighed only 1/6 of its Earth weight. Read the dang link, all of it! The motor only exerted only 1.5 PSI onto the lunar surface when landing, not enough to create a crater.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617850

On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 7:43:16 PM UTC-8, noTthaTguY wrote:

> a sixth -- always forget about that;
> Mars is about a fourth?

http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/73-How-strong-is-the-gravity-on-Mars-

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617853

ah, nineteen fiftieths in base at least ten

> http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/73-How-strong-is-the-gravity-on-Mars-

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web