Go Back   Physics Help Forum > College/University Physics Help > General Physics

General Physics General Physics Help Forum

Like Tree2Likes
  • 1 Post By studiot
  • 1 Post By Pmb
Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Apr 23rd 2018, 03:33 PM   #1
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 92
Nasa

During the Apollo 11 lander descent from the moon's orbit to the surface of the moon, the lander achieves a velocity of 2 km/s then the lander's rocket engine is ignited and produces a thrust of 10,000 lb that reduces the lander's downward velocity. Near the moon's surface the Lander's thrust is reduced to 3,000 lb. At the moon's surface, the lander's rocket engine's thrust would result in the formation of an enormous amount of rocket smoke yet the lunar descent film does not depict rocket smoke. The lack of the moon's atmosphere is used to justify the non-existence of the rocket smoke but the production of the rocket smoke is caused by the combustion of the Aerozine rocket fuel (kerosene) and the oxidizer (liquid oxygen) which would result in the formation of an enormous amount of rocket smoke which is not depicted in the lander descent film. The decent film of the lunar lander shows the lander propagating in a horizontal direction that would require a thrust in the horizontal direction and a constant center of mass of the lander yet the lander would experience an enormous change in the center of mass because of the fuel being consumed during the landing which would shift the center of mass and render it nearly impossible for the horizontal motion of the lander during the descent depicted in the lander descent video. The Lunar Landing Research Vehicle (LLRV) that propagates in the horizontal direction is used to justify the lander propagating in the horizontal direction but the LLRV main engine is a jet that would not function on the moon. The descent film depicts the Apollo astronauts having a conversation that is being recorded in the descent film but the rocket engine would produce an enormous roar which would prevent the audio feed of the Apollo astronauts have their conversation recorded in the Apollo 11 landing film. The landing and ascent of the Apollo 11 astronauts would be a life and death experience yet the Apollo descent and ascent lander films do not depict the intensity that would be expected in such a dangerous endeavor. The photographic images of the Apollo 11 lander does not depict a blast zone beneath the exhaust nozzle of the lander caused by the 3,000 lb rocket thrust during the final descent. The argument that the 3,000 lb thrust is not significant enough to produce a blast zone beneath the lander is used to justify the non-existence of the blast zone. Using an analogy, a Lear jet engine is rated at 3,500 lb thrust. The 3,000 lb rocket thrust would result in a blast zone beneath the Apollo 11 lunar lander yet the Apollo 11 photographs (fig 22) show absolutely no disturbance of the fine particle matter in the area beneath the lunar lander. In the Apollo 11 photograph, the shadows of the lunar objects are pointing in different directions which suggest that the Apollo 11 photographs were fabricated. The variation in the contour of the lunar surface is used to explain the multiple directions of the lunar shadows but in an Apollo 11 photograph (fig 23), a rock and the lander are separated by the distance of 300 meter and are forming shadows with an angle of 45o on a near level lunar surface which negates the contour surface argument. In another argument, the earth's intensity is used to represent a second light source that forms the multiple directional lunar shadows but if the light intensities of the Sun and the Earth formed the lunar shadows then each lunar object would form two separate shadows yet each of the lunar objects is forming a single shadow. No photographs were taken together of the stars of the stellar universe and an Apollo 11 astronaut on the surface of the moon. In an on camera interview after the Apollo 11 mission Neil Armstrong stated that he did not recall the stars of the celestial universe while on the surface of the moon. NASA justifies the absents of stars in the Apollo photographs using the extremely high intensity of reflected Sun light from the surface of the moon prevents the stars from appearing in the Apollo 11 photographs because the short camera exposure time prevents the image of the stars to appear in the photographs. Nonetheless, the Apollo 11 mission astronauts appear extremely disturbed in the interview when the question was asked regarding the absents of the stars in the photographs taken on the surface of the moon since the star question contradicts the Lunar mission's actual occurrence. Neil Armstrong never gave an on camera interview after his initial interview that included the question regarding why no stars appear in any of the Apollo 11 photographs. Only 20 photographs of the Apollo 11 lunar landing were released. It appears extremely suspicious that such and important and expensive Apollo 11 project would only result in the release of 20 photographs from the surface of the moon. The original film of Neil Armstrong stepping on the surface of the moon has been lost and the only record of the event was taken indirectly from a NASA monitor by a TV camera. NASA lost the original film of the most important scientific achievement in the history of man. There is also a problem regarding the distance of the camera and Armstrong making his first step on the moon's surface since according to NASA a video camera extends from the side of the lander is approximately 3 meters from the lander stairs but the film of Armstrong's first step onto the moon's surface depicts a camera that is more than 30 meters away from the lander. The lunar surface during the day reaches the temperature of 400o Fahrenheit which would result in the Apollo astronaut's space suit to explode. The argument that the space suit reflects the Sun's intensity is insufficient since the lunar heat would conduct through the astronaut's boots, space suit and the interior gas within the space suit which would result in the space suit to exploding. The near side of the moon where the lander descended is continuously illuminated by the Sun's maximum intensity for more than a thousand years since the moon is not rotating of an axis. The moon near side is always illuminate and forms a full moon perpetually. NASA justifies the lunar landing using the Caltech-MIT lunar reflector that was placed on the surface of the moon during the Apollo 11 mission but the Hubble telescope (.1 arcsec) that is more than six times more powerful than the LICK telescope (.6 arsec) cannot view the lunar lander on the surface of the moon yet the LICK telescope is detecting an intensity of the lunar reflector that has an area of one square meter. There would have been no question regarding the Apollo 11 lunar landing, if NASA left a radio beacon on the surface of the moon and independent sources could verify the origin of the radio signal but a radio signal that originates from the moon cannot be detected on the earth because the intensity of a radio signal is dependent on the inverse of the second order of the distance I = A cos(kr)/r2 . After propagating the distance of 50,000 miles (r = 8 x 107 m) from the moon a 20 kW radio signal would diminish by a factor of 10-14, a 20 kW radio signal produced on the surface of the moon would be less than the intensity of a cell phone after propagating a distance of 50,000 miles and at 100,000 miles from the moon, the radio signal would disappear yet the moon is located 238,000 miles from the earth which would result in a decrease in the intensity of a radio signal by a factor of 10-16 . Radio telescopes are used to justify the communication with the Apollo mission but the sensitivity of a radio telescope is estimated at 1 x 10-9 W which would not be able to detect the 10-13 Watt radio signal that originates from the Apollo 11 mission. It is questionable how NASA communicated with the Apollo missions, Voyagers, and Mars probes using radio waves. The Mars mission uses X-ray radio waves to communicate with the Mars probe but X-rays are not radio waves since X-rays are not formed by Faraday's induction effect. In a film of an Apollo astronaut walking on the surface of the moon shows the placement of the American flag on the surface of the moon but in the film, the flag appears to be flapping similar to a flag blowing in the wind yet the surface of the moon has no atmosphere that could form the waving of the flag with the intensity depicted in the Apollo 11 film. It is argued that the vibration of the flag created by the astronaut placing the flag onto the moon causes the flag to wave but the intensity of the flag waving in the horizontal direction suggests that the Apollo 11 mission flag waving was created by a cooling fan within a movie studio. The amount of fuel required to land and ascent to and from the surface of the moon is calculated. The amount of fuel required to launch a payload from the surface of the earth into the earth's orbit is approximately equal to the amount of fuel required in descending the same payload onto the surface of the earth from the earth's orbit using a descent rocket re-entry. The fuel load required to descent a payload from the moon's orbit to the surface of the moon can be calculated using an earth base rocket launch by compensating for the moon's gravity. The total weight of the Apollo 11 lunar lander (dry) is 15,083 lb. Using the moon gravity of .166 g the lunar lander moon weight is calculated,




(15,083 lb) x (.166) = 2,504 lb................................................ ................................................85




To decent the lander onto the surface of the moon would be comparable to launching a 2,504 lb payload from the surface of the earth into the earth's orbit. The Taep'o-dong 2 rocket has a maximum payload weight of 1,000 lbs and uses 114,913 lb of liquid rocket fuel which forms a fuel-payload ratio of




R = (114,913 lb) / (1,000 lb) = 115............................................... .............................................86




Using the fuel-payload ratio R (equ 82), the minimum amount of rocket fuel required to launch a 2,504 lb payload into the earth's orbit is





(2,504 lb) x R = 287,960 lb................................................ .................................................. ......87




To descent the 15,083 lb lander (moon weight of 2,504 lb) onto the surface of the moon using a descent rocket re-entry requires approximately 287,960 lb of fuel yet the total amount of fuel used in the lander descent is 18,000 lb.


.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................



The fuel load required to ascent the lunar module from the surface of the moon back into the moon's orbit is calculated. The mass of the accent module is 4,740 lb (dry) which represents a moon weight of




(4,740 lb) x (.166) = 790 lbs............................................... .................................................. .....88




To ascend a moon weight 790 payload from the surface of the moon back into the moon's orbit using the fuel payload ratio (equ 82) is determined,




(790 lb) x R = 90,850 lb................................................ .................................................. ...........89




The moon weight of the ascent module's fuel load is calculated,




(90,850 lb) x (.166) = 15,081 lbs............................................... ............................................90




The moon weight of the descent lander (dry) is 2,504 lb with an addition of 15,081 lb that represents the ascent module moon weight fuel load which produces a re-calibrate descent lander moon weight of is,




2,504 lb + 15,081 lbs = 17,585 lb................................................ ...........................................91




The total fuel load of the lander to descend onto the surface of the moon is re-calculated using equations 82 and 87,




(17,585 lbs) x (115) = 1,758,500 lb................................................ ..........................................92




To descent the 17,585 lb lander onto the surface of the moon using a descent rocket re-entry would require 1,758,500 lb of rocket fuel yet the descent lander is depicted by NASA to consume 18,000 lb of fuel during the descent.


"History shows us examples of scientists who were able to make a great leap forward specifically because they were not limited by the data. One of the most dramatic examples occurs at the beginning of the nineteenth century, when we may find a scientist willing to ignore the limitations of numerical facts for the sake of correct idea or theory, even to the extent of saying that certain numbers probably should be made a little bit bigger, others a little smaller, and so on. It was precisely in this way that Dalton proceeded in developing his atomic theory. Some scientists do not like examples of this sort, because they imply a special virtue "fudging" the evidence or "cooking" the data, and they warn us that we must not ever tell our science students that discoveries have been made in this way." (Suppe, p. 300).
lovebunny is offline  
Old Apr 23rd 2018, 03:46 PM   #2
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,347
Is this a long winded attempt to say that the Moon landings were faked?

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.
topsquark is offline  
Old Apr 28th 2018, 05:40 PM   #3
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 92
They may not have made it past the VAB. Plus, look at the picture of Armstrongs first step it does appear that someone is taking the video away from the lander? I'm probably wrong since I am not a NASA worker with so much experience at shooting off rockets and all. I have an idea that can make a super rocket since the Saturn has an effenciy of less than 1 percent. Is this correct the a rocket engine has an Efficiency of less than 1 %!!!!!!!!!!! What is the Efficiency of a car at least 6 percent. I think the efficiency of a rocket is .01 percent but they are concealing this information just as they are concealing the sensitivity of a radio telescope. I wonder if all this concealment is hampering NASA.

Last edited by lovebunny; Apr 28th 2018 at 05:46 PM.
lovebunny is offline  
Old Apr 28th 2018, 08:24 PM   #4
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by lovebunny View Post
They may not have made it past the VAB. Plus, look at the picture of Armstrongs first step it does appear that someone is taking the video away from the lander? I'm probably wrong since I am not a NASA worker with so much experience at shooting off rockets and all. I have an idea that can make a super rocket since the Saturn has an effenciy of less than 1 percent. Is this correct the a rocket engine has an Efficiency of less than 1 %!!!!!!!!!!! What is the Efficiency of a car at least 6 percent. I think the efficiency of a rocket is .01 percent but they are concealing this information just as they are concealing the sensitivity of a radio telescope. I wonder if all this concealment is hampering NASA.
Wow. Conspiracy theorist? I can't say anything about rockets to Saturn (maybe it's possible we could build them but the cost!) and radio telescopes (why on Earth would they worry about that?) but for the Moon... If we've never been to the Moon then how did that freaking mirror get up there in 1969? There's a very good Mythbusters episode that explains a lot of the theories behind the Moon landing. I suggest you look it up.

Ummmm... You do think the Earth is round, don't you?

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.
topsquark is offline  
Old Apr 28th 2018, 08:51 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 291
There is absolutely NO doubt the moon landings were faked ... so much evidence for this it's overwhelming ....

Basically the risks of getting there with 60's tech meant a very high chance of failure ... the US government couldn't take that risk , so it was all filmed on Earth ... The russians did similar things , once a cosmonaut was a famous figure , they just couldn't risk his life , they sent up a stand in , if the mission went wrong and he died, they could cover it up.

But the US did have men on the moon in the early 60's using advanced craft ,back engineered from downed UFO's , there is a whole secret breakaway civilisation off world , this reportedly has millions of people in bases on mars and other places ..

The following video is the story of a marine recruited into the '20 and back' program , which involves serving 20 years off world , then being memory wiped, put back in time 20 years and returned to Earth ... we now have dozens of whistleblowers like this guy .


Last edited by oz93666; Apr 28th 2018 at 08:54 PM.
oz93666 is offline  
Old Apr 28th 2018, 09:07 PM   #6
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,347
C'mon oz. I gave you a whole thread to talk about this stuff and even you admitted it was getting nowhere. Please don't start another conspiracy based conversation. It's not going to get anywhere here either.

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.
topsquark is offline  
Old Apr 29th 2018, 01:47 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Somerset, England
Posts: 919
Looong Si..igh!
topsquark likes this.
studiot is offline  
Old Apr 30th 2018, 04:51 AM   #8
Pmb
Physics Team
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boston's North Shore
Posts: 1,504
Originally Posted by lovebunny View Post
They may not have made it past the VAB. Plus, look at the picture of Armstrongs first step it does appear that someone is taking the video away from the lander? I'm probably wrong since I am not a NASA worker with so much experience at shooting off rockets and all. I have an idea that can make a super rocket since the Saturn has an effenciy of less than 1 percent. Is this correct the a rocket engine has an Efficiency of less than 1 %!!!!!!!!!!! What is the Efficiency of a car at least 6 percent. I think the efficiency of a rocket is .01 percent but they are concealing this information just as they are concealing the sensitivity of a radio telescope. I wonder if all this concealment is hampering NASA.
Those people don't lie Any country, like Russia, could have been monitoring their fliight and radio transmissions all the way to the moon and back.
topsquark likes this.
Pmb is offline  
Old Apr 30th 2018, 08:14 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 291
Originally Posted by Pmb View Post
Those people don't lie Any country, like Russia, could have been monitoring their fliight and radio transmissions all the way to the moon and back.
The russians knew very well Apollo was faked ( according to the same russian defector who said they faked many of their own missions) ... what they gona do ??? Announce to the world the US faked it ..the US government would cry "sour grapes" ... and then any westerner who said hoax would be called a comie , unpatriotic , and the truth would never get out ....

Jodrell bank in the UK was under US control during Apollo ... http://www.angelfire.com/moon2/xpasc...drellRadar.HTM
oz93666 is offline  
Old Apr 30th 2018, 08:46 PM   #10
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,347
Look, we're not going to go through this kind of thing again. If you really want to do this, and I will be watching for "aggressive posting," then do it in the Lounge, or preferably, over PM.

Thread closed.

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.
topsquark is offline  
Closed Thread

  Physics Help Forum > College/University Physics Help > General Physics

Tags
nasa



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Physics Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nasa's big announcement MathGuru Physics 3 Apr 16th 2018 07:31 AM


Facebook Twitter Google+ RSS Feed