Did Man Set Foot On The Moon In The 60s, 70,s Or Ever?

Ive seen flags waving about and there is no air there. how is this?

Quote:

Stop trying to sound authoritative about things you know nothing about

.

LOL this is from a man who does not understand that any rocket taking off in a vacuum would be design to burn all it fuel as near to the surface as possible so as not to be carrying part of it fuel up the gravity well.

Maximum possible thrust on takeoff, minimum thrust on landing at least near the surface.

Occom Bill wrote:

This explanation would be acceptable, if it weren't for Buzz Aldren telling his tale about the first flag being blown over by their departure.

Unless the flag was firmly anchored in the ground, you could have nudged it over with a negligible amount of force.

Film taken from the LM Ascent Stage upon liftoff from the moon reveals the American flag, planted some 25 feet (8 m) from the descent stage, whipping violently in the exhaust of the ascent stage engine. Buzz Aldrin witnessed it topple: "The ascent stage of the LM separated ...I was concentrating on the computers, and Neil was studying the attitude indicator, but I looked up long enough to see the flag fall over."[40] Subsequent Apollo missions usually planted the American flags at least 100 feet (30 m) from the LM to prevent its being blown over by the ascent engine exhaust.

25 feet that force traveled without the benefit of air... and you don't think it should have blown some dust around?

Although I disagree with your general proposition that Apollo 11 didn't land on the moon, I do agree with you on this particular point. The thrust of the Lunar Landing Module's descent state was lower than that of its ascent stage, because the descent stage worked against a much greater weight.

Occom Bill wrote:

25 feet that force traveled without the benefit of air... and you don't think it should have blown some dust around?

It should have blown a little dust around. Indeed, farmerman said there are photos showing that it did. But it would have blown around a lot less dust, across a much lesser distance than you would expect from your experience on Earth. And that's enough to explain why your picture of the retro-reflector looks the way it does.

As to the flag "shaking violently": again, what did you expect? There is some exhaust reaching the flag, no air resistence to attenuate its shaking motion, and a 3-4 foot leverage to push it over. (Leverage the exhaust didn't have when working against dust on the ground.)

32,399 pounds of Luner Landing Module allegedly landed on the moon with a rocket engine capable of 6,800 pounds of force. Now if you don't want your Lander to crash into the surface, the basic formula is relatively simple: Divide the weight of the craft by 6 and you have a rough idea of what it would take to keep from crashing into the surface... about 5,000 pounds of force.

Quote:

32,399 pounds of Luner Landing Module allegedly landed on the moon with a rocket engine capable of 6,800 pounds of force. Now if you don't want your Lander to crash into the surface, the basic formula is relatively simple: Divide the weight of the craft by 6 and you have a rough idea of what it would take to keep from crashing into the surface... about 5,000 pounds of force.

Sorry silly rabbit 99 percent of the fuel and the mass of that fuel in it descent stage would be gone by the time it go into the near lunar touch done mode.

That your problem you get information and you do not understand that information.

Although I disagree with your general proposition that Apollo 11 didn't land on the moon, I do agree with you on this particular point. The thrust of the Lunar Landing Module's descent state was lower than that of its ascent stage, because the descent stage worked against a much greater weight.

I assumed as much, but appreciate your saying so anyway. I suspect your silence was being taken by Bill as agreement with Bill's nonsense.

Are you, therefore, saying that they had 1% of the total fuel for liftoff? If not, what are you saying?

No Blast Crater
Apollo 11 Lunar Module with no blast crater underneath
Apollo 11 Lunar Module with no blast crater underneath

One of the giveaways, according to the hoax theorists, is that there is no blast crater on the moon underneath the Lunar Module. With 10,000 pounds of thrust at its disposal, the Lunar Module should have blasted a large hole in the surface of the moon. As it is, it's not even scorched.


Discussion

If you think about it, you realize that there's no way they would have been using all 10,000 pounds of thrust when they landed. Since the same engine was used to take off again, the 10,000 pounds of thrust would have caused the Lunar Module to literally rocket off into space! Since the weight of the module, the astronauts, and the equipment in the one-sixth lunar gravity totalled about 3,000 pounds, then running the engines at 3,000 pounds would have caused them to hover in place. So they throttled down to slightly less than that in order to land softly.

The circular engine nozzle had a diameter of 54 inches, and so, according to the equation A = πr², its area would have been about 2,290 square inches. That means that, at 3,000 pounds of thrust, the module's engine output was a pressure of only 1.3 psi. For comparison: an astronaut who weighs 250 pounds on Earth, plus a 100-pound spacesuit, will weigh 60 pounds on the moon. If the astronaut's foot is 5 inches by 12 inches, and therefore has an area of 60 square inches, this means that each step taken by the astronaut has a pressure of 1 psi. If the astronaut is carrying an 18-pound moon rock, that will bring his pressure up to 1.3 psi. And in such a case, he certainly wouldn't be leaving a blast crater with every step!

On top of that, the Lander came in at an angle so there was no point at which it hovered over the landing site.

There are many examples of jet and rocket engines on Earth which do not leave craters despite much higher thrust than the LM descent engine used. For example the DC-X which tested vertical takeoff and landings during short flights at White Sands. One flight made an emergency landing off the paved area out in the desert and left an area disturbed so "heavily" that the site was difficult to find after the rocket had been moved from the landing site. The DC-X used an engine with a thrust of some 60,000 pounds - 20 times the thrust of the LM descent engine at landing. The expectation of a blast crater under the LM at landing is in fact based on errant physics, even for larger thrust engines. However, to say that the soil under the LM was undisturbed is defintitely not true. There are many photographs showing the surface under the LM and it can be seen to have been scoured by the rocket engine in the seconds before engine shutdown as the LM approached the surface and has a radially disturbed pattern. Films of the landings clearly show the radially blown dust flying off on ballistic trajectories away from the LM as they made their final approach to the surface.

A breath-taking amount of nonsense in this thread.

A breath-taking amount of nonsense in this thread.