Comments by "Blaze 114" (@blaze1148) on "Curious Droid"
channel.
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@g.gorrell2088 Lets just use some intelligent logic shall we and nail this lack of crater under the LM issue down 100% - I will address the other issues later because wow there are many !
Lets take your silly analogy of do you park your car with the gas peddle mashed to the floor? - the last time I looked cars were not driven by their exhausts and the last time I looked the LM didn't have brakes to slow it's momentum but I digress.....lets make your analogy a little more relevant shall we and take a medium sized family saloon [similar weight - which is still an issue even @ 1/6th gravity] stand it upright with between 1,000 and 10,000 pounds of thrust - going through say two exhaust pipes either side to give more stability.
1. Do you think you need more or less thrust in a thinner atmosphere ?
2. Does this thrust reach the surface easier in a rarefied or thicker atmosphere ?
3. Do you think you need to increase or decrease the aforementioned thrust the nearer you get to the landing surface ?
4. Do you think being a far thinner atmosphere [and 1/6th gravity of Earth] any dust on the surface would be dislodged.
from the surface more easily ?
5. Do you think with the extremely flimsy construction of the LM it would be preferable to land on a hard or soft surface ?
6. Lets put the inertia question again....1/6th gravity only affects weight and not mass so would the inertia be the same as on Earth ?
7. As shown on the official NASA footage a large amount of dust can be seen to be disturbed from the surface - where was that from ?
8. Do we see a hard regolith under the LM or a grainy dusty surface ?
How would you explain the fact that there were 16 maneuvering rocket nozzles on the lunar module (4, as crosses, on each superior vortex of it) and there is not a single footage of them firing although you can see the vehicle maneuvering in space (yaw, pitch and roll)?. How would you explain a computer so basic as that in the LM (with less computer power than a hp financial calculator of the 80s) controlling all 16 thrusters as a fly by wire aircraft of this days? Nasa, formally claims that all the digit crunching for the maneuvering thrusters were done on earth and then sent to the LM, but there is a problem on that, there is a 1.6 seconds delay between the earth and the moon, so it its an impossible answer. How would you explain the fact that about the flying earth simulator of the LM there is only one footage, where it failed and almost killed Neil Armstrong, no single film of it being controlled successfully. Think about it.
Other LM/CM musings ....
What I was wondering was how was their command module and lander able to morph from a cavernous ship large enough for astronauts to do flips in zero G while someone filmed them from 7 feet away to a relatively small space diagram with every inch packed with huge tanks needed to carry out the mission? Some depict the astronauts packed in the ship so tight there wasn't room for another member to a spacious ship able to stage filming the earth supposedly with the camera right up against the glass. Then all of a sudden you see arms and bodies coming between the camera and the glass 185,000 miles from the earth. Hearing them discussing how to get a realistic shot as the cabin lighting is restored to show they were actually shooting the shot from 6 or 7 feet away from the window as they removed the transparency film from the window along with the curved black material they used to fix unacceptable parallax egg shape error caused by the thickness of the window from top to its bottom while shooting from a distance on an angle. The curved black material fixed the error perfectly making it look like the earth terminator line between night and day in their fraudulent video of the earth. They bragged about their clever technique and how their "LIVE" shot will be perfect for playback! Then there is the scientific evidence of their missions impossibility I figured out myself today. The average man at rest requires 19 cubic feet of pure oxygen per 24 hours scrubbers or no scrubbers once you figure in the atmospheric pure oxygen percentage, amount consumed by the metabolism and amount exhaled after. That gives you 19 cubic feet X 3 men leaves you needing 57 cubic feet to sustain a 3 man crews actual metabolism at rest! NASA switched to a 35% oxygen mix after the horrific accident with Gus Grissom and 2 other souls. That translates to their voyage now requiring 171 cubic feet of 34% mixed gas per day. Multiply that by 10 1/2 days you have 1795 cubic feet of 34% oxygen mixed gas-actually needed if they were at REST!! NASA claims only 73 cubic feet of gas per day. The Apollo tanks were only pressurized to 200 bars pressure due to the added strain of launch and vacuum of space. Using Boyle's Law 1795 cubic feet at 200 bar requires a 131.93 cubic foot tank at 2900 PSI ! That's not even considering the oxygen consumed by the 2KW fuel cell the lunatics claimed produced 56 gallons of potable water a day!.....they would need 96.96 cubic feet of air per gallon x 56 gallon a day is 5429.76 cubic feet of air to produce that 56 gallons of water per day X 10 days = 5429.76 extra cubic feet of air per 10 day mission just for that fuel cell water production so add another 285 cubic feet to the breathing figure and you need a 417 cubic foot tank at 200 bar!! Add in the fuel, oxidizer, helium and nitrogen tanks and you got !!!! Nobody's doing flips for the camera man 6 feet away!
By far and away, the best arguments for debunking the moon landing(s) are thermodynamic, audible, and footprint. There is only one way to explain Armstrong's audibles upon descent in a pressurized mag/aluminium can with 140 - 150 dB rocket engine noise in the immediate environment - Bose noise cancelling earphones and, er, uh, microphone! And for anyone who has ever worked in 100C+ worksite in a protective, pressurized suit, well knows that cooled air is vital for survival. In the absence of such a cooled air tank, the power pack needed to cool the air in the suit would have to have exceeded several thousand joules per hour, which would require batteries/power plant roughly equal in size to the LM itself. (Remember Apollo 13? - the movie?) And for anyone moderately experienced in rocketry, the ground around the blast/ground contact area WILL BE COMPLETELY DUST FREE - atmosphere or not as the blast constitutes its own atmosphere. Great visual, but total farce. Kudos to Kubrick for getting almost everything else right, the dream lives on in what might have been, and what still might be. So much of life exists in the "what could have been" that there is no need for disparaging one of the better intentioned fairy tales.
Does Rocketry actually Work in the Vacuum? [made very simple]
The reason space travel is not possible is because the systems we claim to use to propel a rocket through space operate on gas pressure and there is no gas pressure in space.
Gas pressure requires molecules to be in contact with each other, bouncing off each other, causing millions of collisions per second, etc… If you release gas into the vacuum of space, the first molecule that pops out will shoot off into the distance at a constant speed, so will the one behind that, never catching up with the first one. The third, fourth, etc… all fly off into the distance trying to fill the vacuum by finding their empty corner. So no matter how much gas you produce none of it will ever change the pressure under a space ship. None it if will ever push a spaceship. To push a spaceship there must be some locally high pressure under it, which is impossible since the pressure in space is 0 everywhere.
Back the the Nozzle and the Massflow equation F=MA on earth
Think about a fire hose shooting water. A force comes directly back against the column of water shooting out. Why? Because the first drop of water has to pass through air, which is dense, causing many collisions, slowing down the drop of water. The second drop, directly behind the first, will not be slowed down by the air so it will collide with the first drop, the third drop hits the second drop and so on, the fast water coming through the hose pushing through the slower water outside causes Newton’s 3rd Law to push back on the column of water. This is why you need people holding the hose to add an unbalanced force otherwise the hose would not be able to push water through that column anymore, the water column would be diverted and the hose would flop around. It is obvious that one drop of water does not push back on the hose, you need a fast moving column.
The nozzle and the Massflow equation in space
Since the molecules leaving the combustion chamber and entering the vacuum never slow down, never collide with any outside objects, nor with each other, their force is always moving forward, away from the ship. There is no way for that force to be returned to the ship. There is no way for the force of the moving molecules to be extracted and used for propulsion. Their force is carried off into the far corners of space. This is also known as Joule Expansion. Remember that as soon as the nozzle is opened, the combustion chamber becomes part of the vacuum of space as is subject to its laws. A closed chamber is under pressure but not an open one.
According to your physics there should of been a larger crater under the LM than the hole you have dug yourself into.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1