Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Conspiracies & Cover-ups
Flat-Earth
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="nickrulercreator" data-source="post: 174598" data-attributes="member: 10256"><p>Except there's a difference between the amount of photons received from bouncing it off any place on the surface, and where the lasers are.</p><p></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>There shouldn't be any. It comes down to simple math. The LM's descent engine was 54 inches across (<a href="http://www.friends-partners.org/mwade/craft/lmdlsion.htm" target="_blank">source</a>). It had a maximum thrust of 10,000 lbf, but at the final part of the landing it was reduced to 3,000 lbf. A circle 54in across has a surface area of 2,300 sq. in. 3000/2300 is about 1.5psi of force. Your footprint exerts more force on the surface of the Earth than the LM's descent engine did onto the Lunar surface. Furthermore, gasses expand in a vacuum, meaning they decrease in pressure even more. The LM's descent engine never touched the lunar surface and actually stopped a few feet above the surface, so by the time the gasses from the engine hit the surface, they were powerful enough to blow dust away (which can be seen in up-close photos), but not make any crater.</p><p></p><p></p><p>There shouldn't be any dust on the pads. On Earth, dust billows thanks to the atmosphere, but in a vacuum environment (such as the Moon), dust doesn't billow. Instead, objects travel in an unbroken arc-shaped path (gravity causes the arc). The dust, as it was blown away by the engine, shot out sideways or up and away from the LM. No dust was able to billow and remain around the LM, as there was no vacuum.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Are you talking about the LM? Why would it have forward-moving momentum? It landed coming straight down. It didn't hit the surface with horizontal velocity. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Evidence? I've never seen one claim of NASA fakery stand up to scrutiny.</p><p></p><p> </p><p>Evidence? NASA only gets $19billion in the Federal budget. That's next to nothing compared to the entire budget.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Only if the force of the engine's exhaust was powerful enough. If it wasn't, it'd blow away dust, but it would never dig into the surface. </p><p></p><p></p><p>According to whom? The LM was never designed to land on Earth, or work in an atmosphere, so why should it work on Earth? They tested the thing prior to launch, obviously, but they never tested it to fly on Earth. It would never get off the ground, Earth's gravity is too strong. That's what Apollos 9 and 10 were for though. A9 tested the LM in Earth orbit, and A10 took it to the Moon for the first time. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Because that's what it was designed to do. It was tested to make sure each component worked, especially the landing legs, on Earth. They'd drop the LM while simulating 1/6g on Earth to see if the LM could withstand the impact, and it did. Then the whole thing was tested in space on Apollo 9, then it was seen if the whole thing could go through the landing sequence (without actually landing) on Apollo 10.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Of course not, but the evidence does.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="nickrulercreator, post: 174598, member: 10256"] Except there's a difference between the amount of photons received from bouncing it off any place on the surface, and where the lasers are. There shouldn't be any. It comes down to simple math. The LM's descent engine was 54 inches across ([URL='http://www.friends-partners.org/mwade/craft/lmdlsion.htm']source[/URL]). It had a maximum thrust of 10,000 lbf, but at the final part of the landing it was reduced to 3,000 lbf. A circle 54in across has a surface area of 2,300 sq. in. 3000/2300 is about 1.5psi of force. Your footprint exerts more force on the surface of the Earth than the LM's descent engine did onto the Lunar surface. Furthermore, gasses expand in a vacuum, meaning they decrease in pressure even more. The LM's descent engine never touched the lunar surface and actually stopped a few feet above the surface, so by the time the gasses from the engine hit the surface, they were powerful enough to blow dust away (which can be seen in up-close photos), but not make any crater. There shouldn't be any dust on the pads. On Earth, dust billows thanks to the atmosphere, but in a vacuum environment (such as the Moon), dust doesn't billow. Instead, objects travel in an unbroken arc-shaped path (gravity causes the arc). The dust, as it was blown away by the engine, shot out sideways or up and away from the LM. No dust was able to billow and remain around the LM, as there was no vacuum. Are you talking about the LM? Why would it have forward-moving momentum? It landed coming straight down. It didn't hit the surface with horizontal velocity. Evidence? I've never seen one claim of NASA fakery stand up to scrutiny. Evidence? NASA only gets $19billion in the Federal budget. That's next to nothing compared to the entire budget. Only if the force of the engine's exhaust was powerful enough. If it wasn't, it'd blow away dust, but it would never dig into the surface. According to whom? The LM was never designed to land on Earth, or work in an atmosphere, so why should it work on Earth? They tested the thing prior to launch, obviously, but they never tested it to fly on Earth. It would never get off the ground, Earth's gravity is too strong. That's what Apollos 9 and 10 were for though. A9 tested the LM in Earth orbit, and A10 took it to the Moon for the first time. Because that's what it was designed to do. It was tested to make sure each component worked, especially the landing legs, on Earth. They'd drop the LM while simulating 1/6g on Earth to see if the LM could withstand the impact, and it did. Then the whole thing was tested in space on Apollo 9, then it was seen if the whole thing could go through the landing sequence (without actually landing) on Apollo 10. Of course not, but the evidence does. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Conspiracies & Cover-ups
Flat-Earth
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top