conspiracy theories

[rodsky]

---

do we have any video footage for the lunar module actual flight simulation with real astronauts?

Clarify your query, are you looking for footages of simulation or the actual landing?

If simulation (LLRV), here:

YouTube - Early Lunar Landing Research Vehicle (LLRV) Flight Test

If actual landing, here's the landing of Apollo 15 (note, this is the 4th time a lunar module landed on the moon, and occurred on July 30, 1971. Commander, Dave Scott, LMP, Jim Irwin (dec.) ):

YouTube - Apollo 15 Landing

-RODION

[rodsky]

Actually i like this part, the video of the astronauts on two different areas of the moon taken 3 days apart when they were supposedly surveying around the moon.

a video of a scene from the astronauts roaming around the moon was taken.
3 days after, they took another picture or film of a supposedly different area of the moon.

and guess what?
its the same background and foreground.
haha, you should examine the video again.

From Phil Plait's "BAD ASTRONOMY" website:


Bad: The other ``identical background'' segment shows an astronaut on a hilltop. A second video shows two astronauts on the same hill (and this time it really is the same hill), and claims that NASA itself says these two videos were taken on two different hills separated by many kilometers. How can this be? They are obviously the same hill, so NASA must be lying!

Good: Never attribute to malice what you can attribute to a mistake. A videotape about Apollo 16 ironically titled ``Nothing So Hidden...'' released by NASA does indeed make that claim, but in this case it looks to me to be a simple error. I asked Eric Jones, who is the editor of the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, and he told me those two clips were taken about three minutes apart. Eric's assistant, Ken Glover, uncovered this problem. He sent me this transcript (which I edited a bit to make links to the video clips) of the Fox show with his comments, which I will highlight in red:

Narrator: Background discrepancies are also apparent in the lunar video.

[...]

[Video showing John Young at Station 4 on EVA-2, with Fox caption "Day One". Click here for the transcript and here for the RealVideo clip.]

Narrator: This shot was taped in what was purported to be the first of Apollo 16's lunar excursions.

[Audio of John Young dubbed over clip: "Well, I couldn't pick a better spot", actual MET of 123:58:46]

[Next, video of John Young and Charlie Duke at Station 4, EVA-2. In reality, about three minutes after the first clip. Fox caption "Day Two". Click here for the transcript and here for the RealVideo clip.]

Narrator: And this video was from the next day, at a different location.

[Audio of Charlie Duke dubbed over clip: "That is the most beautiful sight!", actual MET of 124:03:01]

Narrator: NASA claims the second location was two-and-a-half miles away, but when one video was superimposed over the other the locations appear identical.

[Audio of John Young dubbed over "Day Two" video: " It's absolutely unreal!", actual MET 144:16:30]

Narrator: Conspiracy theorists claim that even closer examination of the photos suggest evidence of doctoring.

That last line is pretty funny. The audio you hear of the astronauts in those clips was actually all from different times than the video!

So that's why the hill looks the same. It's the same hill, and the two clips were not taken a day apart, but from three minutes apart or so. Again, had the program producers bothered to check their sources, they would have received a prompt answer. That's all I did: I emailed the editor of the ALSJ. It was pretty easy to do, and he answered me in minutes.

BTW since I'm already quoting Phil's site, here's the link to the entire site, to those who have open minds and would like to know more "hoax-busting" facts (primarily directed towards the FOX Special: "Conspiracy Theory--Did We Land on the Moon?":

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

-RODION

[blutors]

you have to know this before it's too late!

YouTube - The COMING NEW AGE- ONE WORLD RELIGION-1
YouTube - The New Age Movement - The Lie of the Serpent - 1
YouTube - Aquarius: The Age of Evil (1/14)
YouTube - Spirit Enlightenment: The New Age Deception

be wise as serpent and be harmless as doves! Know your enemy...

[Soul Doctor]

kapoy estorya. tan-awa na lang sa youtube:

"Did we really Land of the moon?"

explain then---
why there is no blast crater on the lunar landing site?

[THE SKULLS]

kapoy estorya. tan-awa na lang sa youtube:

"Did we really Land of the moon?"

yes, naay naka-land sa moon. sure ko unmanned. ambot kaha ug naa bay tawo naka-tongtong sa buwan.

explain then---
why there is no blast crater on the lunar landing site?

wala daw blast crateer kay lapukon ang surface sa moon. unja naa pud capsul base plate mao nga dili mo-create ug crater.
naay mga explenasyon ang mga pro-moon landers.

duda japon ko.

[THE SKULLS]

the practice flight for the real astronauts.
take off and landing.

and I was taking pictures of the sky last night under a well lighted post in ayala with many lights arround and a glowing moon. I still captured the stars.

YouTube - Apollo 15 Landing

I'm not a good movie critic or creator, but I believed it's manufactured again.
Same studio?
If we can't make it, fake it..

[peterpan1980]

NWOs Ten Commandments: Americana Stonehenge



American Stonehenge: Monumental Instructions for the Post-Apocalypse

1.Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.

this is the best of all! yeah!

People worshiping Mother Gaia(Greek Goddess) will also love this.. like in the talmud..

"Basing themselves on the Talmud, the Jews (led by Guttmacher and others) have always been the prime instigators of abortion. In the late 1990's Human Life International even documented that abortion providers were training female abortion providers to offer the dead infants to "Mother Gaia" via witchcraft as sacrifice to a goddess."

Wow.. Balance2x bah.. lo-oy kaayo si "mother earth" if we won't kill 6 billion people on earth..

Go people.. Abort now and offer your kids to your Goddess!

Kill them all!

[peterpan1980]

you have to know this before it's too late!

YouTube - The COMING NEW AGE- ONE WORLD RELIGION-1
YouTube - The New Age Movement - The Lie of the Serpent - 1
YouTube - Aquarius: The Age of Evil (1/14)
YouTube - Spirit Enlightenment: The New Age Deception

be wise as serpent and be harmless as doves! Know your enemy...

No.. don't worry bai...

Some people don't need to wake up..

look bible says..

II Peter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days "scoffers", walking after their own lusts.

Scoffers anyone?

People are just: "3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of.. " the truth..

People who are "willingly ignorant" are just people.. There's nothing you can do about it.. but God has..

Look..

2 Thessalonians 2:11 - And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie..

Strong delusion like CNN Fox National Pornographic i mean Geographic..

Don't worry bai.. all of this is in the plan..!

[rodsky]

and I was taking pictures of the sky last night under a well lighted post in ayala with many lights arround and a glowing moon. I still captured the stars.

Show the photo. Period.

I'm not a good movie critic or creator

And yet you judge based on your limited knowhow/experience/

but I believed it's manufactured again. Same studio?

"You're free to believe what you want. That's the beauty of our society." - Alan Bean (AP12 LMP, 4th man to walk on the moon)

If we can't make it, fake it..

"Nine times...why would we fake it nine times?" - Charlie Duke, on the absurdity of the fact that if NASA wante to fake something, why fake it multiple times, considering that statistically speaking, increasing the frequency of faking something would reveal more of its false nature. (AP16 LMP, 10th man to walk on the moon).

-RODION

[rodsky]

kapoy estorya. tan-awa na lang sa youtube:

"Did we really Land of the moon?"

explain then---
why there is no blast crater on the lunar landing site?

From: Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy: Bad TV

Bad: In the pictures taken of the lunar lander by the astronauts, the TV show continues, there is no blast crater. A rocket capable of landing on the Moon should have burned out a huge crater on the surface, yet there is nothing there.

Good: When someone driving a car pulls into a parking spot, do they do it at 100 kilometers per hour? Of course not. They slow down first, easing off the accelerator. The astronauts did the same thing. Sure, the rocket on the lander was capable of 10,000 pounds of thrust, but they had a throttle. They fired the rocket hard to deorbit and slow enough to land on the Moon, but they didn't need to thrust that hard as they approached the lunar surface; they throttled down to about 3000 pounds of thrust.

Now here comes a little bit of math: the engine nozzle was about 54 inches across (from the Encyclopaedia Astronautica), which means it had an area of 2300 square inches. That in turn means that the thrust generated a pressure of only about 1.5 pounds per square inch! That's not a lot of pressure. Moreover, in a vacuum, the exhaust from a rocket spreads out very rapidly. On Earth, the air in our atmosphere constrains the thrust of a rocket into a narrow column, which is why you get long flames and columns of smoke from the back of a rocket. In a vacuum, no air means the exhaust spreads out even more, lowering the pressure. That's why there's no blast crater! Three thousand pounds of thrust sounds like a lot, but it was so spread out it was actually rather gentle.

Note added December 6, 2001: Originally in this section I said that the engines also cut off early, before the moment of touchdown, to prevent dust from getting blown around and disturbing the astronauts' view of the surface. This was an incorrect assertion; it was known that dust would blow around before the missions were launched, and steps were taken to make sure the astronauts knew their height above the surface. Anyway, the incorrect section has been removed.


From: Clavius: Vehicles - the blast crater


QUESTION FROM HOAX BUFF: The lunar module's descent engine should have dug a huge crater in the lunar surface.

I have yet to see a conspiracist who has given any kind of quantifiable justification for this belief. We could simply ask, "Why do you expect a crater?" and probably be done with it. A few have made vague references to other vehicles in other situations that produce some kind of visible interaction with the soil underneath them. But none can explain why that ought to be immediately generalized to include the lunar module.

The Lunar Landing Training Vehicle, for example, didn't produce any craters. And it directed even more downward thrust than the lunar module. Harrier jets and large helicopters routinely produce vast amounts of downward thrust without leaving large craters behind.

QUESTION FROM HOAX BUFF: The rocket engine's thrust was focused on one point for quite some time. Surely there would be a significant visible effect.

Not necessarily. It's difficult to tell from the landing film footage just how high above the surface they were. But until the very last few seconds, the approach profile for the lunar module called for some forward motion. The exhaust probably wasn't focused on any one spot for very long.

The notion that it was focused at all displays some misunderstanding of how rocket engines behave in a vacuum. Watch very carefully at the next rocket launch. As the rocket climbs higher and higher, the exhaust plume spreads out. Because the surrounding air gets thinner as the rocket climbs, there is less air pressure to impede the dispersal of the exhaust gasses.

QUESTION FROM HOAX BUFF: The lunar module's descent engine produced 10,000 pounds (4,550 kgf) of thrust. Surely 10,000 pounds of pressure is enough to dig a very large hole.

Basic Newtonian physics solves this problem.

"Weight" is simply the force of gravity between two masses. If something weighs a certain amount on earth, that's the same as saying a force of that amount exists between the earth and the object. The force of gravity is computed partly by multiplying the masses of the two objects in question. The moon has only a fraction of the mass of the earth, and so exerts much less gravity. The force between the moon and that same object would be only 1/6 as much.

Galileo's principle lets us treat force, weight, and acceleration as identical concepts when dealing with gravity. A falling object accelerates downward because gravity imparts a constant force resulting in a constant acceleration. This acceleration produces an increase in downward velocity.

So if you want to descend at a constant rate you have to precisely negate that gravitational force so that your acceleration along the vertical axis is zero. This means the net force along the vertical axis must also be zero. So if you can apply a force exactly equal to the force of gravity, but in the upward direction instead, you can achieve that constant velocity. (Hovering is the same principle, but with the constant velocity being zero in that case.)

The Apollo 12 lunar module, for example, had a mass of 33,325 lbm (15,148 kg) fully loaded. On earth gravity would exert a force of 33,325 lbf on that spacecraft. But near the end of the descent it was not fully loaded. Most of the descent engine (DPS) propellant had been burned away. Fortunately there are ample references to how much DPS propellant was consumed. We can therefore calculate the weight of the lunar module very accurately as it neared touchdown. According to telemetry, 705 lbm (320 kg) of DPS propellants remained from an initial load of 18,226 lbm (8,285 kg).[Reports12] This means at touchdown the lunar module had shed at least 17,521 lbm (7,964 kg) by burning its descent fuel. Subtracting this from the launch mass gives a landing mass of 15,804 lbm (7,184 kg).

Earth's gravity would exert a force of 15,804 lbf on that mass, but the moon's gravity exerts only one-sixth that much: 2,634 lbf.

So in order to negate the downward force of 2,634 lbf we merely have to apply an upward force of the same magnitude. Therefore a thrust of 2,634 lbf was required to hover or descent at a constant rate.

Yes, it really is that easy.

This describes the situation seconds before touchdown. The initial descent was of course very fast. And so to slow the rate of descent it would have been necessary to apply a larger thrust that surpasses the force of gravity. This amount of thrust was applied at high altitude where it did not affect the lunar surface.

By comparison, a fully-loaded Harrier jump jet produces 27,000 lbf thrust at liftoff -- ten times more than a lunar module. Yet you typically do not see a crater under a Harrier. This is because popular intuition dictates that a rocket engine of any size is automatically more powerful than a jet engine of any size. In fact, most jet engines are more powerful than the lunar module's rocket engines.

STATEMENT FROM HOAX BUFF: The published strength of the lunar module descent engine is 10,000 pounds, not 3,000 pounds. With weight at a premium on the lunar module, the designers wouldn't have specified an engine larger than necessary. Therefore it's wrong to say that only 3,000 pounds of thrust was applied. [Aulis]

The published capacity of the lunar module descent engine (DPS) is indeed just under 10,000 lbf (4,550 kgf), and weight certainly was at a premium. But managing the descent and hovering over the lunar surface just prior to touchdown wasn't the DPS's only task. It was also used to perform orbital maneuvers prior to the landing. The lander was bloated with fuel and supplies at the start of the descent, and orbital maneuvers are very time-critical. Having a large engine ensured they were carried out precisely with short burns, not sloppily with long burns from a weaker engine. Further, should the astronauts have needed to abort the landing and ascend, the engine would have to produce much more thrust than the force of gravity.

Physics is obviously a mystery to the folks at Aulis. They're clearly grasping at straws. With 10,000 lbf of thrust applied upward, a constant rate of descent would have required an equal force of lunar gravity applied to the lander in order to produce zero net force and therefore no acceleration. Since gravity is six times stronger on earth, this means the lander would have massed 60,000 lbm on earth -- nearly twice its published takeoff mass. Aulis is only looking at the published lunar lander data that supports his theory. Then they apparently hope the physics will all work itself out.

They don't.

STATEMENT FROM HOAX BUFF: When I worked at Rocketdyne I saw tests of engines as powerful as the lunar module descent engine. They can move boulders across canyons. The engine should have dug clear down to bedrock on the moon. [Bill Kaysing]

Thrust of Common Engines
Engine Thrust
(lbf) Thrust
(kN)
Space shuttle
(one SSME) 518,000 2,300
German V-2 160,000 714
Boeing 747-300
(one Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4G2) 54,750 241
F-16N jet fighter
(in afterburner) 27,000 119
Boeing 737-700
(one GE CFM56-7B) 24,200 108
Apollo LM DPS
(25% throttle) 2,600 11
Marquardt steering jet 100 0.5
Table 1

Mr. Kaysing is clearly exaggerating, or is perhaps confused. Since he is not a trained engineer and was merely a spectator at any tests he may have witnessed at Rocketdyne, he may have not known the rating of the engines he saw tested. Rocketdyne would eventually build the most powerful rocket engines in the Apollo program, the F-1, and was the clear choice to design and build large rocket engines. Perhaps Mr. Kaysing saw one of those being tested. Since Mr. Kaysing never specifies what projects at Rocketdyne he actually worked on, we simply have to decide whether to take him at his word.

10,000 lbf is not a very powerful engine as engines go. As noted above, people intuitively believe that any rocket engine is automatically more powerful than any jet engine. In fact they produce thrust in exactly the same way: by ejecting high-velocity gas from the rear nozzle. Many jet engines are in fact quite a bit more powerful than the lunar module descent engine. And Kaysing also seems unaware that the LM engine would have to be throttled back to about 25% -- 2,634 lbf -- in order to land.

Table 1 compares the thrust of some common engines, both rocket and jet. The Boeing 747 certainly has a tremendous thrust, and care must be taken when those engines are operated near airport equipment. The Boeing 737 is a more common aircraft and many air travelers have seen and felt its engines operating at various thrust levels around airport personnel and equipment. The lunar module descent engine at 25% throttle is about the same as taxi thrust (5%) of a 737, the amount of thrust used to get the aircraft moving after it has pushed back from the gate. You don't see it throwing baggage carts or workers across the ramp. It is hard to imagine it digging down to bedrock.

QUESTION FROM HOAX BUFF: The exhaust plume was very hot, about 5,000 F. It should have melted the lunar surface. Yet no there is no sign of melting in the photographs.

The exhaust gas was 5,000 F in the combustion chamber, where most of the combustion took place. At the nozzle exit the temperature was about 2,800 F. And as the plume expands into the vacuum of space, it cools very rapidly, down to 1,000 F or so. By the time it strikes the lunar surface it is not hot enough to melt it.

The lunar surface is composed of rock and dust. It takes a tremendous amount of heat concentrated on such material for a long period of time to melt it. We collected some desert rocks and dust and heated them with an oxy-acetylene torch (5,700 F) for five minutes. They did not melt, and they were only slightly discolored. Photographs of the area under the Apollo 11 descent engine nozzle (Fig. 2) show an apparently discolored surface.

QUESTION FROM HOAX BUFF: Is there any evidence in the photographic record of the effect of the lunar module's descent engine?

Fig. 1 - Closeup of the lower left corner of AS11-40-5920 (396 KB). The ground shows unmistakable signs of fluid erosion. The DPS plume would have swept the surface from lower left to upper right. (NASA)


In Fig. 1 the exhaust plume can be seen to have swept the surface from lower left to upper right. The DPS exhaust nozzle is out of frame to the lower left.

Fig. 2 - The lunar surface directly beneath Apollo 11's descent engine. The spot directly beneath is discolored and the surrounding area shows radial patterns of fluid erosion and signs of sooting. (NASA: AS11-40-5921, 316 KB).


Fig. 2 shows the area directly beneath the engine. In the hi-res version the erosion pattern from the exhaust can be clearly seen. The area directly beneath the nozzle, which would have been subjected to the most heat, is discolored slightly red. This could be a thermal effect, or a chemical effect from the nitrogen tetroxide used as oxidizer.

Note carefully the lines of erosion that spread out in a radial pattern away from the point of impingement.

The conspiracists seem disappointed that a more dramatic result was not produced. Unfortunately this is what we expect to see under the lunar module. The exhaust plume is simply not powerful enough to dig holes in the tightly-packed regolith.

Math and physics will ruin your day, hoax-buffs.

-RODION