PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2017-12-12, 10:27:00
News: If you have a suggestion or need for a new board title, please PM the Admins.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6
Author Topic: Did we go to the Moon  (Read 8587 times)

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1105
As we have already shown you, the LRO was _launched_ by NASA but is not operated by NASA. Just because the images from the ASU team which operates the cameras and processes the photos are hosted on a NASA website doesn't mean the images "come from NASA".

And the rest of your statement about electrostatics only continues to reveal that you don't have much experience with electrostatic phenomena, and/or that you (as you often do) are misinterpreting what you have seen.


Men from Earth have walked on the Moon, Brad. Face the _facts_ and quit letting yourself be seduced by quackery. Every one of the claims of "fakery" have been debunked, many times over.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/photogalleries/apollo-moon-landing-hoax-pictures/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examination_of_Apollo_Moon_photographs
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/07/18/apollo-11-fake-proof_n_5599372.html
http://www.relativelyinteresting.com/the-moon-landing-hoax-debunked-again/

And especially:
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/truth-behind-moon-landings/


---------------------------
"The easiest person to fool is yourself" -- Richard Feynman
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2623
NASA
Document R2 77 ??

mentioned here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmRwQCoK_XY

some of us are a bit more suspicious of why the long and sudden stop in exploration of a most obvious asset.

The silence is deafening


« Last Edit: 2016-01-25, 16:28:04 by Chet K »
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2108
Everyman decries immorality
http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/10apr_moondustinthewind/

April 10, 2008: Moondust is dry, desiccated stuff, and may seem like a dull topic to write about. Indeed, you could search a ton of moondust without finding a single molecule of water, so it could make for a pretty "dry" story. But like the dust in your mother's attic, moondust covers something interesting – the moon – and even the dust itself has curious tales to tell. A group of NASA and University of Alabama researchers are what you might call "active listeners": Mian Abbas, James Spann, Richard Hoover and Dragana Tankosic have been shooting moondust with electrons, levitating moondust using electric fields, and scrutinizing moondust under an electron microscope. All this is happening at the National Space Science and Technology Center's "Dusty Plasma Lab" in Huntsville, Alabama.

Why such attention? Spann explains: "Humans will return to the moon in a few years and have to know what to expect. How do you live and work in a place filled with moondust? We're trying to find out."

"Moondust was a real nuisance for Apollo astronauts," adds Abbas. "It stuck to everything – spacesuits, equipment, instruments." The sharp-edged grains scratched faceplates, clogged joints, blackened surfaces and made dials all but unreadable. "The troublesome clinginess had a lot to do with moondust's electrostatic charge."

Dust on the moon is electrified, at least in part, by exposure to the solar wind. Earth is protected from the solar wind by our planet's magnetic field, but the moon has no global magnetic field to ward off charged particles from the sun. Free electrons in the solar wind interact with grains of moondust and, in effect, "charge them up."

etc..

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2005/30mar_moonfountains/

That took me about 2 minutes to type "moon dust electrostatic charge" into a search engine, and about 8 minutes to copy edit a couple of NASA top picks to post here. Nice pictures too  O0


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2623
Soo all we need is an extension cord to Plug into the moon ?

the "charge" is everywhere !!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-T7tCMUDXU&list=PLGXvKGgTcvRZ0VqdYnc2owKJ_8ZZ4OtH_

This Vid is a must see regardless !!

[Elapse time 27 seconds...on one leg with both eyes closed  8)]

with Brevity and Much respect

Chet K

 
   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 457
If we didnt go to the moon how do we know about the alien bases? (See what I did there)
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2108
Everyman decries immorality
Soo all we need is an extension cord to Plug into the moon ?

the "charge" is everywhere !!

Kind of yeah..

The Earths electrical potential is huge:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_electricity

Experiments have shown that the intensity of this electric field is greater in the middle of the day than at morning or night and is also greater in winter than in summer. In 'fine weather', the potential, aka 'voltage', increases with altitude at about 30 volts per foot (100 V/m), when climbing against the gradient of the electric field.[3] This electric field gradient continues up into the atmosphere to a point where the voltage reaches its maximum, in the neighborhood of 300,000 volts. This occurs at approximately 30–50 km above the Earth's surface.[4] From that point in the atmosphere up to its outer limit, nearly 1,000 km, the electric field gradient produced in the lower atmosphere either ceases or has reversed.

UNIT 21: ELECTRICAL AND GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL

http://www.sfu.ca/phys/141/ActivityGuide/pdf/Unit21.pdf

Approximate time two 100-minute sessions

"I began to think of gravity extending to the orb of the moon,
and . . . I deduced that the forces which keep the planets in their
orbs must be reciprocally as the squares of their distances from
the centres about which they revolve: and thereby compared the
force requisite to keep the moon in her orb with the force of
gravity at the surface of the earth, and found them to answer
pretty nearly.  All this was in the two plague years of 1665 and
1666, for in those days I was in the prime of my age for
invention, and minded mathematics and philosophy more than
at any time since."     
     

Isaac Newton                                                     


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2108
Everyman decries immorality
If we didnt go to the moon how do we know about the alien bases? (See what I did there)

Point of view (philosophy)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_of_view_%28philosophy%29

In philosophy, a point of view is a specified or stated manner of consideration, [1] an attitude how one sees or thinks of something, [2] as in "from doctor's point of view". This figurative usage of the expression as attested since 1760.[3] In this meaning, the usage is synonymous with one of the meanings of the term perspective.[4] [5]

What is the source material for your alien base existence belief ?


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1820


Buy me some coffee
As we have already shown you, the LRO was _launched_ by NASA but is not operated by NASA. Just because the images from the ASU team which operates the cameras and processes the photos are hosted on a NASA website doesn't mean the images "come from NASA".

And the rest of your statement about electrostatics only continues to reveal that you don't have much experience with electrostatic phenomena, and/or that you (as you often do) are misinterpreting what you have seen.


Men from Earth have walked on the Moon, Brad. Face the _facts_ and quit letting yourself be seduced by quackery.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/photogalleries/apollo-moon-landing-hoax-pictures/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examination_of_Apollo_Moon_photographs
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/07/18/apollo-11-fake-proof_n_5599372.html
http://www.relativelyinteresting.com/the-moon-landing-hoax-debunked-again/

And especially:
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/truth-behind-moon-landings/
Quote
Every one of the claims of "fakery" have been debunked, many times over.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNWs-vlIhdM
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2888
tExB=qr
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lfkta0IT26w

They claim the crosshairs were removed when the false horizon for this moon picture was created at 9:25 in this video.

   
Newbie
*

Posts: 13
If the earth is really "flat",
Yet we find ourselves circling around it, regularly...

Must we conclude, that the earth is therefore:  A Cube ?
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 13
Did we go to the moon?
Absolutely.

Those that think otherwise, either have no comprehension of rocket science,
or are majorly deluded by propaganda, and uneducated rumors...

I can tell you from personal experience, that NASA possesses photos and video of lunar missions that
were NEVER made public. even to this day, they deny they ever went BACK!
This data was taken from a "secure" NASA server,
not public info, and we went over and over the situation.
there is no reason for them to have faked the extra footage, then catalog and store it among real mission files.
and there was found no evidence of editing, or altering of the footage or photos in any manner.
I had 3 professionals look at the images.


I have watched 3 lunar landing videos.
two of them were accompanied by UFO(s) following the landers to the surface.
in the unedited footage, astronauts and mission control can be heard discussing extraterrestrial entities watching their mission.
more than once during the 3rd landing, there was noted a large spacecraft sitting on a ledge, observing them.
The known moon landing videos, the UFO's were edited OUT of the footage, so they are not shown to everyone.
There are laws in the U.S. that supersede, even the President, on this issue.
There are other issues - weapons and technology so far beyond our current accepted knowledge, so as to produce mass panic.
                                 Certain details of our current accepted knowledge, that we don't want the general public to know about.

I could go on, but basically what I am saying is,
similar to the media 'black-outs',
the government decides what we do and do not know about. period.
When they decide "we are ready",...   then they will tell us.
Until then, we are left to our own discord.

Some of us know just enough to know they aren't telling us everything they know.
Others know what they are not telling us
and others still, know why.

You have to understand, much like everything else they feed us,
there are at least three sides to this issue.
Those that believe/know
Those that do not
and those that are not sure.

Divide et impera - a concept that is as old as government itself.
Are you "republican" ? "democrat" ?  "don't care/don't vote"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_rule


In addition to this, there is a recent report from Chinese Intelligence, indicating the finding of an active US AirForce base,
ON "THE MOON"!!!!!

add that to telescope images from 3 spots on the planet, that clearly show a 160ft satellite dish,
in a lunar crater.

It seems NASA wants us to debate conspiracies,
doubt that we ever left the planet,

so no one thinks about what they are REALLY doing up there.....

When you look into the sky, there is an object 30x brighter than the north star.
brighter than any satellite, and anything else in the sky, save the sun itself.

This is the ISS. People live there, year round.
Without the Apollo missions,
this never would have been possible.


   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1182
It is difficult for the many to even contemplate that there
may be a space exploration program presently conducting
operations within our solar system and beyond.

The program is a component of the United States Navy.

It exists because of "technology" provided by certain
"Alien Races" and mutual assistance agreements.


---------------------------
"Truth: the most deadly weapon ever discovered by humanity. Capable of destroying entire perceptual sets, cultures, and realities. Outlawed by all governments everywhere. Possession is normally punishable by death." - John Gilmore (1935- ) Author
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 306
It is difficult for the many to even contemplate that there
may be a space exploration program presently conducting
operations within our solar system and beyond.

In the absence of heavy duty evidence, Yes.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1820


Buy me some coffee
Reboot

Seems Dave is on the !proving the moon landings! hunt.

I would have expected better from Dave--not very scientific.

Who see's the faults in this video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYPmitSg268

P.S-a quote from smokey2
Did we go to the moon?
Absolutely.
Those that think otherwise, either have no comprehension of rocket science


So,who has the rocket science smarts to explain as to why there is no blast crater under any of the lunar landers ?


Brad
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1333
Frequency equals matter...
When did the camera appear on the outside of the lunar lander for the FIRST step? Wouldnt somebody have to install it first. There were no windows at that level and the shot was level to low. Like attached to the lander part. I guess it could have been the same one that videoed the landing itself?


---------------------------
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1105


Quote
Starting with Apollo 7, a camera was carried on every Apollo Command Module (CM) except Apollo 9. For each lunar landing mission, a camera was also placed inside the Lunar Module (LM) Descent Stage's Modularized Equipment Stowage Assembly (MESA). Positioning the camera in the MESA made it possible to telecast the astronauts' first steps as they climbed down the LM's ladder at the start of a mission's first moonwalk/EVA. Afterwards, the camera would be detached from its mount in the MESA, mounted on a tripod and carried away from the LM to show the EVA's progress; or, mounted on a Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV), where it could be remotely controlled from Mission Control on Earth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_TV_camera


---------------------------
"The easiest person to fool is yourself" -- Richard Feynman
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1105
(snip)

P.S-a quote from smokey2
Did we go to the moon?
Absolutely.
Those that think otherwise, either have no comprehension of rocket science


So,who has the rocket science smarts to explain as to why there is no blast crater under any of the lunar landers ?


Brad

This guy does:
http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/LMcrater.htm


---------------------------
"The easiest person to fool is yourself" -- Richard Feynman
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1105
Reboot

Seems Dave is on the !proving the moon landings! hunt.

I would have expected better from Dave--not very scientific.

Who see's the faults in this video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYPmitSg268

(snip)
Brad

So you claim to believe that the original video frames from the ascent, and the LRO photo taken 40 years later, are actually from the original hoax project and that's why they match up so well?  Or that some unmanned robotic vehicle actually left the tracks and no humans actually went there?

Well, I for one do not believe that you actually don't believe in the manned lunar landings. Prove me wrong!

Note all the dust kicked up by the lander as it was about to touch down:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_OD2V6fMLQ

I'm old enough to remember watching this stuff on television in 1969.


---------------------------
"The easiest person to fool is yourself" -- Richard Feynman
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1820


Buy me some coffee



 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_OD2V6fMLQ

I'm old enough to remember watching this stuff on television in 1969.

Quote
So you claim to believe that the original video frames from the ascent, and the LRO photo taken 40 years later, are actually from the original hoax project and that's why they match up so well?

I am asking as to why the screen shot from the original footage,taken from a camera back in 1969,looks clearer than the picture taken from the LRO,a satellite designed solely for taking pictures of the moons surface.
And why dose it look like the tracks have been eroded away in the LRO picture-some 40 years later-->wind?  C.C

The pictures from the LRO,where taken at a altitude of only 25km.
Below i have included a picture taken from the GeoEye 1,at an altitude of 681km.
GeoEye 1 also has to contend with the earths atmosphere,where as the LRO dose not.

Quote
Or that some unmanned robotic vehicle actually left the tracks and no humans actually went there?

We are going on the assumption that these tracks are actually on the moon.
There are man made tracks on mar's,and yet no humans have been there.

Quote
Well, I for one do not believe that you actually don't believe in the manned lunar landings.

No chance in hell man went to the moon in 1969.

Quote
Prove me wrong!

I would have thought that the one(or ones) making such a great claim,are those that should be providing the proof?.
The only proof we have so far,is provided by those that are making the claim,and the proof provided is that unclear it's almost a joke.

Quote
Note all the dust kicked up by the lander as it was about to touch down:

My 900 watt blower vac kicks up more dust than that.

Lets do this using the scientific method TK,and look at one thing at a time.

First -the absence of a blast crater.
I will go read that link you provided,and see what we find.

Brad
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1820


Buy me some coffee
Ok,so lets deal with the apollo 11 mission.
You will see that i will be wording thing's,so as it sound's like we are actually talking about the moon landings as being a reality,as i just dont see any point at this time to include !apparent or apparently! in every thing i say.

As this will take a fair bit of writing,quote's,pictures and video clip's,we will do it one part at a time.

So,a quote from the link TK provided,in relation to the absence of a blast crater.

Quote: It is assumed the LM's descent during the final three seconds is vertical, which, conservatively, results in the greatest concentration of the exhaust stream. By "conservative" it is meant that the assumptions are worse than reality. For instance, if the LM were still drifting forward during the final seconds prior to touchdown, as it likely was, the exhaust stream would be sweeping across the surface rather than being concentrating on a single spot. Concentrating the exhaust into a small area produces a deeper excavation that reveals itself more conspicuously. In all cases conservative assumptions, i.e. the worst than can be, will be made to favor the argument of the conspiracy theorists. If this conservative approach shows that no conspicuous crater is produced, we can be sure that reality will be even less.

To know for sure,and leave behind assumptions,we simple look at the high res pictures from the apollo 11 mission.
Looking at the picture below,we can clearly see that the lunar lander made a vertical landing,with no sign what so ever of the landing pads skidding sideways as it made touchdown.
Had the lunar lander been traveling sideways as well as down when it made touchdown,we would see the sand/dust banked up on one side of the foot pad's,and a skid mark on the other side of each pad-but no such sign of a sideways landing is present.

You will also note the footprints left in the lunar surface,near the rocket's nozzle,indicating a soft dusty surface.

Although some of the pictures to follow in post's to come,may look like the moons surface is made of a moist sand/dust combination,we know that that is not true,as there is no way the surface could contain any sort of moisture content in a vacuum. C.C

Anyway,the sideways landing is debunked.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1820


Buy me some coffee
Continuing on with the link provided by TK,to explain away the absence of a blast crater.

http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/LMcrater.htm

Here you will see this claim-and probably true.
Quote:we find that the velocity of the lunar dust has been estimated to be between 0.6 and 1.5 miles per second (about 1,000 to 2,400 m/s). It is logical to assume the gas velocity (after losing energy to the soil) is the same as the dust. That is, the dust particles are propelled by the gas and are carried along with the gas flow at the same speed. We'll assume the low end of the velocity range, i.e. 1,000 m/s, because this is ultra-conservative.

So,the ejected mass from the moons surface is traveling at !a conservative! 1,000 m/s
To put this in a perspective that you can relate to,the average sand blaster ejects it's abrasive particles at around 200 m/s
http://www.sand-blast-machine.com/content/6-Blasting-nozzles

Now,we know what happens to a material subjected to a sand blaster,where the ejected abrasive has a speed of 200 m/s,and so what would happen to a material subjected to an abrasive traveling at 5 times the velocity to that of your average sand blaster ?. Well apparently--nothing  C.C
The lite foil around the landers feet is untouched by this high velocity media being ejected at 1,000 m/s from under the lunar lander.
We are also told that the moons regolith is sharp and jagged,and so would make for one hell of a blasting media.
We are also told that the moons regolith/dust is electrically charged,and sticks to !any! surface it comes in contact with--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_soil
Quote: The dust is electrically charged and sticks to any surface it comes in contact with.
But the lander's legs remain shinny clean  O0

Oh-zoom in on the picture below,and check out the lovely styrofoam cut out bits around the foot pad ball joint's.

Something is amiss here  ???
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1820


Buy me some coffee
Next we look at the problems associated with the weight measurements in the link provided by TK.

First hickup-why dose he use !lbm!(lean body mass) to describe the landed weight of the lunar lander?
Quote:We obtain the mass of the LM from Selected Mission Weights, where we see the mass at lunar landing was 16,153.2 lbm.

Is this what the lander weighs in lb's on the moon?,as he dose state !mass at lunar landing!,or is this what it would weigh on earth?

If this is what it's weight is on the moon,then there is a problem with his thrust calculations.
Quote example in his chart: -17 to 0-thrust=2,652lbf

So,if we have 2,652 pounds of force,acting against a weight of 16,153 pound's-how dose the lander come down slowly?,as we have a mass of 13,501 pounds that has nothing working against it's acceleration toward the moon,due to the moons gravity.

Can you clarify on this TK,before we go ahead here.


Brad
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1105
Next we look at the problems associated with the weight measurements in the link provided by TK.

First hickup-why dose he use !lbm!(lean body mass) to describe the landed weight of the lunar lander?
Quote:We obtain the mass of the LM from Selected Mission Weights, where we see the mass at lunar landing was 16,153.2 lbm.

Is this what the lander weighs in lb's on the moon?,as he dose state !mass at lunar landing!,or is this what it would weigh on earth?

If this is what it's weight is on the moon,then there is a problem with his thrust calculations.
Quote example in his chart: -17 to 0-thrust=2,652lbf

So,if we have 2,652 pounds of force,acting against a weight of 16,153 pound's-how dose the lander come down slowly?,as we have a mass of 13,501 pounds that has nothing working against it's acceleration toward the moon,due to the moons gravity.

Can you clarify on this TK,before we go ahead here.


Brad

He's using "lbm" meaning "pounds of mass" just as he uses "lbf" to mean "pounds of force". So the lunar lander had a mass of 16,153 pounds which weighs ON EARTH 16,153 pounds. The moon's gravitational acceleration at the surface is 1/6.0624 that of the Earth's. The mass of course doesn't change, just the weight. So on the moon, the lander weighs 16,153/6.0624=2664.45 pounds, give or take. No problem, compared to the 2652 pounds of force available according to the chart.

Don't forget that _all_ this "hoax" stuff had to be in place and working, available for examination, in 1969. We watched it live, most of it, on television back then!



---------------------------
"The easiest person to fool is yourself" -- Richard Feynman
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1105
Ok,so lets deal with the apollo 11 mission.
You will see that i will be wording thing's,so as it sound's like we are actually talking about the moon landings as being a reality,as i just dont see any point at this time to include !apparent or apparently! in every thing i say.

As this will take a fair bit of writing,quote's,pictures and video clip's,we will do it one part at a time.

So,a quote from the link TK provided,in relation to the absence of a blast crater.

Quote: It is assumed the LM's descent during the final three seconds is vertical, which, conservatively, results in the greatest concentration of the exhaust stream. By "conservative" it is meant that the assumptions are worse than reality. For instance, if the LM were still drifting forward during the final seconds prior to touchdown, as it likely was, the exhaust stream would be sweeping across the surface rather than being concentrating on a single spot. Concentrating the exhaust into a small area produces a deeper excavation that reveals itself more conspicuously. In all cases conservative assumptions, i.e. the worst than can be, will be made to favor the argument of the conspiracy theorists. If this conservative approach shows that no conspicuous crater is produced, we can be sure that reality will be even less.

To know for sure,and leave behind assumptions,we simple look at the high res pictures from the apollo 11 mission.
Looking at the picture below,we can clearly see that the lunar lander made a vertical landing,with no sign what so ever of the landing pads skidding sideways as it made touchdown.
Had the lunar lander been traveling sideways as well as down when it made touchdown,we would see the sand/dust banked up on one side of the foot pad's,and a skid mark on the other side of each pad-but no such sign of a sideways landing is present.

You will also note the footprints left in the lunar surface,near the rocket's nozzle,indicating a soft dusty surface.

Although some of the pictures to follow in post's to come,may look like the moons surface is made of a moist sand/dust combination,we know that that is not true,as there is no way the surface could contain any sort of moisture content in a vacuum. C.C

Anyway,the sideways landing is debunked.

You are debunking a straw man. Who ever said the actual touchdown was sideways? That would be very dangerous; you would not want the thing to snag a leg on a rock and tip over. Ask any helicopter pilot what will happen if you snag a gear leg while sliding sideways!

You can see in the original Apollo 11 video of the final descent and landing that the _approach_ to touchdown was drifting sideways as Armstrong maneuvered the ship to a flat spot. He nearly ran the thing out of fuel, too! You can see how the dust was blown around by the engine blast. Look at the pictures of the module and notice the long "feelers" that reach down from the landing legs. The thing essentially fell from a few feet of altitude straight down once the engine shut off. Very slowly since the moon's gravity is less than 1/6 that of earth's. 

Every one of your conspiracy theory "facts" has a similar history of straw-men, misunderstandings, misinterpretations of data, and more. They have all been dealt with many times over. 


---------------------------
"The easiest person to fool is yourself" -- Richard Feynman
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1105
Continuing on with the link provided by TK,to explain away the absence of a blast crater.

http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/LMcrater.htm

Here you will see this claim-and probably true.
Quote:we find that the velocity of the lunar dust has been estimated to be between 0.6 and 1.5 miles per second (about 1,000 to 2,400 m/s). It is logical to assume the gas velocity (after losing energy to the soil) is the same as the dust. That is, the dust particles are propelled by the gas and are carried along with the gas flow at the same speed. We'll assume the low end of the velocity range, i.e. 1,000 m/s, because this is ultra-conservative.

So,the ejected mass from the moons surface is traveling at !a conservative! 1,000 m/s
To put this in a perspective that you can relate to,the average sand blaster ejects it's abrasive particles at around 200 m/s
http://www.sand-blast-machine.com/content/6-Blasting-nozzles

Now,we know what happens to a material subjected to a sand blaster,where the ejected abrasive has a speed of 200 m/s,and so what would happen to a material subjected to an abrasive traveling at 5 times the velocity to that of your average sand blaster ?. Well apparently--nothing  C.C
The lite foil around the landers feet is untouched by this high velocity media being ejected at 1,000 m/s from under the lunar lander.
We are also told that the moons regolith is sharp and jagged,and so would make for one hell of a blasting media.
We are also told that the moons regolith/dust is electrically charged,and sticks to !any! surface it comes in contact with--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_soil
Quote: The dust is electrically charged and sticks to any surface it comes in contact with.
But the lander's legs remain shinny clean  O0

Oh-zoom in on the picture below,and check out the lovely styrofoam cut out bits around the foot pad ball joint's.

Something is amiss here  ???

Another straw man. The lander's footpads were never exposed to the high velocity abrasive dust blast because the engine was shut off while the pads were still several feet up from the surface. The contact sensors were "spikes" that extended down some distance from the pads themselves. Once the sensors indicated contact, the descent engine was shut off and the lander "fell" a few feet straight down onto the pads. Since there is no air on the moon, no dust was kicked up by the actual pads as they "fell" vertically into contact with the surface.





Note the "scoured" looking surface from dust having been blown away:


That sure doesn't look like any "Styrofoam cut out bits" to me.
Besides, Styrofoam chips also electrostatically stick to just about anything don't they?


---------------------------
"The easiest person to fool is yourself" -- Richard Feynman
   
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2017-12-12, 10:27:00