Look at the comical Apollo 17 take off footage. A real take off from the Moon would not only produce exhaust plume but also a visible tail for many miles(just like the comets in principle) against the blackness of space due to no atmosphere on the lunar sky.
@NASACrooks You think a plume from the LM engine should've had rock, dust, ice, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, methane & ammonia coming out of it like a comet?
There's no air on the Moon dude, so no plume or smoke.
Widen your research a little, you won't look so stupid next time ;-)
No carbon coming out of the motherfucking rocket? What the fuck it burns? NASA's special abracadabra fuel ?Go fuck your self and on the way back try find a bridge to jump from fucking scum.
@NASACrooks The fuel was a hypergolic fuel dipshit called Aerozine 50...Oh could I expect you to know that , you're an idiot hoaxtard's tard' x10³º ;-)))
Please stop wasting food and air, and kill yourself for the betterment of mankind.
@NASACrooks Like I said widen your research so you won't look like a moron.
Typical hoaxtard....stop in your tracks ..no research, no investigation...just yell fake...Cause' you don't understand it.....Duhh ddduuuhhh duh duh der dur
@NASACrooks Make it more interesting by bungee-jumping a 100 foot bridge with a 200 foot cord......
This filthy little maggot is one of the biggest trolls ever to infest YT, along, of course with it's cohorts ApoLlowasReal and spreadingThemuse. Three staggeringly stupid and uneducated proles masquerading as intelligent scientifically proficient experts, when in fact they've all got shit in their eyes. Dickheads.
@Tweekerhead The thing you're hoping for is that the entire Nosa escapade will never be exposed as fake just to preserve your pathetic little wet dream. But it will be and fuck me will your life be boring then!! Imagine: walking from your bed to the computer and nothing to do. You could of course try to prise open the pages of your porno magazines.
@Tweekerhead Very funny. You're overstepping the mark somewhat, be careful of what you say.
Psychiatric help is widely available, and perhaps where you squat it might be free. Don't be embarrassed. Your condition is quite widespread around your neck of the woods. Your therapist will reassure you of that.
@Tweekerhead Relevant to what you fucking uneducated stupid inbred Ameriqueen? Keep up the insults if you wish for worse. Plenty of appropriate put-downs are available and at the ready. What an insincere CUNT you are. Your true self ran down your mum's leg when she went to take a dump. What remained became you but your siblings were saved from the splash
JW, you a staw-manning again. The atmospheric gases surrounding an earth-based engine burn are not pure. Gases surrounding EVERY engine burn in atmosphere are chocked full of particulate matter, pollutants & dust--all things not found in the vacuum of space. These particulates, combined with atmospheric elements CAN combust & DO combust.
2nd, on earth, residual atmospheric gases are trapped inside the engine bell @ even in space they are inside the chamber.
JW, you screwed up. Undeniably, you used the SIVb video & I can't believe you won't just admit it. Sure, there are 1,000s of copies of it and some have been edited, color-corrected, stabilized & a host of other things, but the Apollo 9 video you used IS THE SIV-B! To this date, you have ONLY compared engines that were either different engines or in different environments or photographic contexts...and it's not working for you, dude.
For ex: the vacuum chamber shot is NOT in the dark of space!
I've seen this before, classic troll tactic using 2 accounts to hammer away at your non-points that have absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter above. I asked this..."are there absolutely no properties of sound that CAN exist in or through ANY medium in a vacuum?" Now prove me wrong troll. I'm done with this conversation anyway so you can go back to painting your toenails or whatever you Trannys do when you're not trolling the web? LOL
If it's one thing I've learnt from perusing these back-and-for videos, it's that Jarrah deals solely with the argument, while his opponents largely resort to personal insults. Right or wrong, this guy deserves my respect way more than they do.
@stalkervision You're right above Deadjesus' or whatever his name is this week, on the 'totem' pole.
I think he can actually elucidate a thought better than you.
In keeping with the thread of the video, let me ask....Do you really think there should be a plume of smoke on the Moon and sound generated in a vacuum? ;-))
No wonder only the scientifically illiterate believe in the hoax.
@Tweekerhead Ironically, this would seem to be a mute point Tweedledumb since the Apollo missions were faked. And while sound CAN exist in a vacuum, which was my point, why would NASA have rigged microphones to a camera to be used on the moon? Probably not. Who's the idiot now? lol
@Ghenghy No,you said that sound travels in a vacuum,it does NOT,a simple fact that every kid learns in 6th grade.
Sound is a mechanical energy,it needs a medium to travel thru' like air. In a vacuum there is no mechanical medium for sound to travel, so there is NO sound in a vacuum you troglodyte homunculus.
Way to go putting your foot in your mouth, and qualifying yourself as the village idiot.
You have Dunning-Kruger effect, one of the worse cases.
@Chev4206 No, you just shot YOURSELF in the foot, as a matter of fact, you just blew it off! LOL
I could let you go on & on.
You don't understand how a rocket works in outer space, that's obvious, yet you argue as if you have an understanding about the subject at hand.
Think of a rocket as a controlled explosion.
If you have a bomb next to you in outer space and you hide behind a large metal plate, when the bomb goes off,what do you think will happen to you on the other side of that metal plate?
@Chev4206 So you're saying if you're floating in outer space next to a metal shield and on the other side of the thick metal shield there's a bomb, when the bomb goes off, you're saying that there's NO reaction? :-)
@Tweekerhead No reaction whatsoever- no medium for the pressure wave to traverse, no friction, no air or substantial quantities of any gas. Not a lot of anything really wouldn't you agree?
So Mr. Tweekthehead how is it possible for any action to have an equal and opposite reaction since a reaction is dependent on something to act against?
Ever heard of the expression 'empty space', where do you think it comes from?
@Chev4206 The action of the rocket engine's combustion chambers and expansion nozzles on a high pressure fluid is able to accelerate the fluid to extremely high speed, and conversely this exerts a large reactive thrust on the rocket (an equal and opposite reaction according to Newton's third law) which propels the rocket forwards.
Honest to God, you're really a fraud trying to make the hoax-believers look bad right?
You're pulling my chain right? Nobody can be this dumb....
@Chev4206 Look up Newton's 3rd law of motion you idiotic homunculus troglodyte.
Yes ..Hypergolic reactive rockets work in outer space without oxygen, because they have an oxidizer in them call Aerozine 50.
Sorry I can't waste any more time on a person who's not willing to learn anything beyond their realm, or who can't see beyond their nose for that matter.
@Tweekerhead That old chestnut 'not willing to learn' bandied about by all trolls, shills and apollogists.
Standard reply. Are you not embarrassed by your predictability? Has Nosa not yet taught you more advanced evasion tactics? No of course not as all have been exposed.
Yes I know that hypergolic-driven rocket combustion works in outer space and never mind the aerozine shit. It all happens internally yet can react on what?
@Chev4206 Well then never mind,you seem to have it all figured out then!
Let me ask you,how do they get those GOES satellites up there in the geosynchronous orbit at over 36,000km up?
Amazing that a kid like you could come along after over 50+ years of space flight and over 100 years of rocketry and see through the biggest hoax of all, that rockets don't function above the Earth's atmosphere. You must the smartest the most intuitive person that's ever lived.
@Tweekerhead I'm not the only one to know this, there are plenty of forums where this is debated and the general bone of contention is that in outer space rocket thrust is impossible.
The speed achieved by rockets exiting the earths atmosphere is constant. Why do you reckon the latest Mars rocket has to travel around the sun first? Yes to gain extra speed, else why bother?
Sorry pal the onus is on you to prove that rocket thrust is possible in a vacuum.
@Chev4206 " I'm not the only one to know this, there are plenty of forums where this is debated and the general bone of contention is that in outer space rocket thrust is impossible".
Wow. Really?
So we have never launched all those countless satellites that people say enable global telecommunications, weather forecasting, spying on our enemies (and I guess our friends too!). And also of course: the internet. So I guess you're not having this discussion. If only THAT were true!
@eventcone You appear a decent enough chap a fellow Brit hopefully so I shall not be nasty in my reply.
Please do the background reading on this one, I have.
There is a real difference between low earth orbit and outer, or deep, space as you shall discover. No spacecraft ever has been halted in deep space and then allowed to resume its journey because it is impossible. Aponno 13 is a good example. Read about it, please.
Apollogists quote science and physics and never give proper answers.
@Chev4206 "There is a real difference between low earth orbit and outer, or deep, space as you shall discover. No spacecraft ever has been halted in deep space and then allowed to resume its journey because it is impossible."
Well, that may well be true. But what has that to do with the presence of so many artificial Earth satellites (not to mention the spacecraft sent across the Solar System) demolishing your claim that rocket thrust is impossible in outer space?
Ok Miss Valle. Forget this bollocks about Newton's 3rd Law and any shit relating to it. Earth physics do not and cannot apply in space. Space is a void. No friction. No pressure. NOTHING, fuck-all. Possibly like the volume of your intracranial void........
So, Aussie Twat how can an opposite reaction happen when there is nothing to act on? Nothing.
@Chev4206 The thrust acts against the rocket. There are simple explanations.
Shall I begin? Imagine two ice skaters facing each other. One is thrust, the other is the rocket. One pushes the other. Both move - thrust goes one way, rocket goes the other.
@krisdevalle Fuck me you ARE stupid. You have replied directly from the apollogist's tome i.e. proffer an unrelated answer in the (vain) hope that the thread of the conversation shall continue.
Nice try sheep-shagger !!
You're so easy, .......no.
Fucked up, ..............yes.
3/10.02 points for a reasonable answer but it has nothing to do with space. Reach round your skull and engage the braincell.
Space consists of nothing. So in 'nothing' how can 'anything' happen?
@Chev4206 Space, in the example, is the ice. Frictionless void.
Ok? Space is ice. One skater is thrust. One skater is the rocket. Thrust pushes against rocket, both move in opposite directions.
I know this must be tough to get your head around, this is why I am trying to explain it in simple terms. It should be an example that children can understand.
Not even Jarrah White is going to back you on this because he understands how it works.
@krisdevalle Excuse me please? Does your stupidity know no bounds?
Ice by way of its very composition is certainly NOT a frictionless void and the skaters are very much exerting a force-on the ice. Not a very good analogy, eh?
@Chev4206 The point I am trying to make here is that the thrust acts against the rocket. The ice analogy is the closest I can get. To flip it perhaps, think of two people dangling on wires instead. When they push each other, both move away.
Do you understand this? I really am trying my best because this should be something you can get. Simply denying it is not helping you or anyone. It's not bad to have been mistaken or to have had an idea that can be corrected. I get things wrong too.
@Chev4206 Or say it is two people in the space station. Again, if they push each other, both will move apart.
This is the fundamental concept - Newton's Third Law as I said. This is why the rocket does not need air to thrust against, because the thrust acts only against the rocket. Please, instead of just calling me stupid over and over again, think about the concept, think about the examples. They really do work.
Don't give me the lecturing shit, please. I've been through this before and am still here after the dickheads and pathetic idiots have long gone.
Do you wish to join that elite club of failed apollogists?
I can point you in the right direction if you so desire to fulfill our dearest wishes. On second thoughts fuck that, stay here so I can put you down yet further.
@Chev4206 Sorry, are you saying that if there are two people in zero gravity on the space station, not touching anything else but themselves, and they push each other, they will NOT move apart?
@krisdevalle Your answer absolutely beggars belief. You are truly the product of astrorant2's 'apollo propagandist's' handbook of Aponno bullshit of Nosa lies and tactics.
Keep up the bad work and please don't stop trying
@Chev4206 Can you please answer the question put to you, at least.
This is the fundamental concept that we are getting to. Two forces acting on each with no outside medium, ie, the two people in the space station example.
Now please, can you tell me your thoughts on this? If they are free floating, and they push each other, do they move apart, or not?
@Chev4206 So by your logic, when the Saturn V was launched, it was pushing off of the surrounding air around the launch tower and that's how they got a 6,000,000lb. rocket off the ground?
If that's your logic, you're an absolute idiot.
I know how rockets create thrust in outer space, the onus isn't on me. I don't care what you believe, it's of no consequence what an idiot like you believes, you are irrelevant, amusing but totally irrelevant.
@Tweekerhead I think we were nearly getting somewhere, but the idea of forces acting on each in the absence of a medium, such as the two people in freefall/zero gravity broke his brain and he had to just start insulting again.
Frankly I think this last obstacle remains because if he acknowledges I am right about this, I may actually be right about the rest, and that's a tough thing to face. So despite simple and easy to understand explanations, he must continue to disagree.
@Chev4206 "..how can an opposite reaction happen when there is nothing to act on?".
In a rockets combustion chamber, the chemical reaction produces high temperature gases. These therefore want to expand very rapidly, but can do so in only one direction: out via the nozzle. In the opposite direction they come up against the chamber wall, and apply a pressure. This pressure is the thrust, equal and opposite to the rate of change of momentum of particles through the nozzle, per Newton's 2nd law.
Still, if they want to challenge the validity of certain "space events" on a practical basis, they have to get into this stuff, or withdraw from the debate.
The chamber wall has NOTHING to do with thrust. No pressure and no friction in space means that any exhaust gases (and thrust) have NOTHING TO ACT AGAINST because on the other side of the nozzle there is nothing. In space thrust is impossible.
Why didn't Nosa simply turn aponno 13 around instead of sending it to the moon?
Refrain from lecturing me. It doesn't work and makes you appear daft.
@Chev4206 "Refrain from lecturing me. It doesn't work and makes you appear daft".
You like to lecture yourself. And you sure are patronising. The amazing thing is that you are doing both from a position of almost total ignorance.
I'm not the one who appears daft. Your argument (I flatter it with that term) about exhaust gases having NOTHING TO ACT AGAINST is total gobbledegook. I suspect you know that and are just fishing.
So, how DID those satellites arrive in geostationary orbit?
@eventcone Prove to me that beyond the rocket nozzle is something of substance that the exhausting gases can push against. In outer space, not the low altitudes that satellites are positioned from. Please.
Do this politely and correctly and I promise to never mention the subject again.
@Chev4206 There is "nothing of substance" beyond a rocket nozzle that it's eflux "can push against", either in space or within the atmosphere. That is not how rockets work.
BTW - geostationary satellites are not postioned at "low" altitudes. They orbit at an altitude of about 22000 miles. Yet rockets work most effectively there, and beyond.
@moonhoaxlunatic1 Getting to fuck may take some effort but I'm patient. Take your time to ensure its a one way trip. Your concerted action is duly appreciated.
You keep talking about things you know absolutely nothing about. At first it was travel in space, followed by physics and orbital mechanics, and now it's sexual reproduction?
Try a little conversation. And try the use of brains.
You play games here. I favoured you with the chance of some meaningful discussion that would have led to your enlightenment. But you're not interested. That's not why you are here.
Your position was always pathetically absurd, but in choosing not to engage honestly and genuinely, you have conceded defeat.
@Chev4206 Stay ignorant, that's the 'cool' thing to do. You're a rebel and no one can tell you anything.
In all actuality we all feel sorry for you by the way, that's why these men are making an effort to teach you, but your mind is closed tighter than cat's ass in water.
It's good to know that when you grow-up, if you ever grow-up that is....You'll never be in charge of anything.
@Chev4206 You're a kid and you make me laugh much harder than you'll ever know. Thank you for being totally oblivious to the fact that you are at the bottom of the food chain intellectually speaking;-))
You're merely a lonely socially dis-functional sad person looking for an argument and this is apparent in most of your postings.
I can't help imagining you as some spotty teenager with no friends endlessly trolling Yt videos, perhaps even the occasional porn channel 'to keep your hand in'.
You definitely are no professional except a professional prick.
@Chev4206 No, you were wrong. Rockets engines can and do have thrust in a vacuum.
It just shows how your premise in regards to the Moon landings is based on a assumption.
I'm sure you saw the FOX TV show back in 2001originally "Did We Land on the Moon" and was manipulated by the main stream media like most gullible fools, and believed it whole hardheadedly,
It's cool that you're an impressionable kid, but stop acting like you know it all..Know-it-all.
@Chev4206 Yeah, a superior European intellect that thinks rockets should have no thrust in outer space and there should be an exhaust plume in a vacuum on the Moon.
aaaahhhyeeeeeeaaaaahhhh. ..sure kid sure , Ok whatever you say.....
@Chev4206 In your little world, never because rockets don't have thrust in space remember.
Two questions, how did NASA get those GOES satellites we use to predict hurricanes & weather up there in a 36,000km orbit and ....what color is the sky in your little world, is it blue like ours?
@Chev4206 Coming from an idiot like you .Those are all complements.They will go to the Moon when dilithium crystals are made for the 'Warp Drive " engines dude...
But...Wait how will warp drive work in a frictionless environment?
@Tweekerhead Astrocunt2 is waiting. Or is it Astrococksuck1/1.9999. Or AstroBrant1.9998? Or a complete twat like you. You belong with each other. Keep up with the superb bad work.
If awards were attributed to shills and nasa cocksuckers you would be at the head of the queue. 10/10. Astrosuckcock1.9 your mentor has no chance.
@Chev4206 My man...Someday, a few years from now you may see these posts of your, if they're still here. You'll look at em' and probably be mortified in the realization of how obtuse and moronic you were.
If not, then God help this total ass-hole.
Why did God/Universe put ass-holes like you here?
Because God must love ass-holes, he made a helluva' lotta' vem'
@Chev4206 Awww what's the matter little chevy? Well! Let's pop that question in the too hard basket eh?
Goodness you do need help don't you? I know why you won't answer your proud little peacock! Answering this question means you admit rockets will work in space.
Answering it incorrectly will make you look even stupider! Which is why you won't answer it! So fucking good.
Allow me to point you in the right direction. WHEN?
Just so you don't start throwing toys out of your pram I shall answer your question when you have satisfactorily answered mine, after all I asked first.
As an additional teaser try this, How will the first manned moon landing happen?
Remember not to use July 1969 as it never happened because it couldn't have. So stick to the present tense when answering, if you can!
In the physics that apply Only on Earth it says 'To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction'. It works thus and please do pay attention-Apply a force to something tangible, perhaps an atmosphere where friction and pressure exist and you'll get an opposite reaction. Good. Now in outer space where there is Nothing an equal and opposite reaction is impossible because there is Nothing to act back on it. Good.
@Chev4206 Which is why I keep asking you the question about two people floating in the space station and one pushes the other - who moves? One, or both?
Because this is it. This is the theory being demonstrated, and how rockets work.
I know you seem to enjoy trading insults - I do too. But maybe just for a moment, we could just discuss this as if we were two strangers having a pint. Do you think that is at all possible? A truce, for a few hours, perhaps.
@krisdevalle I'm not sure about this as its too quick, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Just don't try any underhand tricks. I know them all.
@Chev4206 Okay. So I understand you still think rockets don't work in space.
This goes against a lot of aerospace engineers opinions, general knowledge and so on, and also makes it very difficult for a lot of space exploration and station keeping with geostationary satellites.
Okay, so with geostationary sats, they are out at about 36,000km. And no orbit is particularly stable - this is something we can look up.
@Chev4206 So I am not going to insult your intelligence - obviously you know how to research and look things up, so I am just going to go through it myself, and I guess it's up to you if you want to follow it.
Okay? No tricks, no insults, just figuring things out.
@krisdevalle Lay off the Valium kiddo and definitely refrain from anymore Imodium because you are shitting everywhere particularly over yourself. Read your shit.
@Chev4206 So two people are on the space station, floating free of any walls. They are facing each other.
Then one of them pushes on the other one.
As far as I understand, when this happens, both of them will move. Because there's nothing anchoring either of them, so the force is distributed equally.
I can't see a situation where only one of them moves, it just doesn't make sense to me. If it does for you, then go ahead and tell me, but this is what I understand to be true.
@Chev4206 Same situation, say, with skydivers - freefalling - both facing each other, one pushes the other, I think that they will both move apart. So these two analogies are the closest I can get to describing how Newton's Third Law works in a basically frictionless environment. In both cases, there are no real outside forces acting on the people. Just themselves, pushing, Or one of them, really.
One pushes, they both move apart. That's what I understand.
@Chev4206 Could you at least do me the courtesy of explaining what I have gotten wrong with that example - the two people freefloating, pushing. If I have messed up with that, please let me know. Seriously.
If you are going to tell me I misunderstand, then at the very least tell me where I went wrong with that.
@krisdevalle "If you are going to tell me I misunderstand, then at the very least tell me where I went wrong with that".
Well, of course, you didn't go wrong, as you know.
Admire you for trying, but I don't think you're going to get that discussion.
BTW - we can think of a rocket engine as 'pushing' on its propellants. It has to in order to accelerate them through the nozzle. The reaction to that 'push' is the thrust. But I know that'll come as no surprise to YOU..... :-)
@eventcone I know... I am finding it particularly enjoyable to push the gentleman to a point where he must face this truth - you can see the actual point where his brain does a little flip and he has to shut down that line of logic because he just can't face it.
He's gone for long with this idea that a simple thought exercise to prove it wrong is really seeming to flip him back into denial or irrationality.
Comment removed
AZAZEL8867 1 month ago
There is no vacuum chamber and no vacuum testing. JW made the "vacuum" part up.
BjornPalmen 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Look at the comical Apollo 17 take off footage. A real take off from the Moon would not only produce exhaust plume but also a visible tail for many miles(just like the comets in principle) against the blackness of space due to no atmosphere on the lunar sky.
Moonlanding my ass.
NASACrooks 1 month ago
@NASACrooks You think a plume from the LM engine should've had rock, dust, ice, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, methane & ammonia coming out of it like a comet?
There's no air on the Moon dude, so no plume or smoke.
Widen your research a little, you won't look so stupid next time ;-)
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
@Tweekerhead
What are you talking about twathead?
No carbon coming out of the motherfucking rocket? What the fuck it burns? NASA's special abracadabra fuel ?Go fuck your self and on the way back try find a bridge to jump from fucking scum.
NASACrooks 1 month ago
@NASACrooks The fuel was a hypergolic fuel dipshit called Aerozine 50...Oh could I expect you to know that , you're an idiot hoaxtard's tard' x10³º ;-)))
Please stop wasting food and air, and kill yourself for the betterment of mankind.
Do not bread.
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
@NASACrooks Like I said widen your research so you won't look like a moron.
Typical hoaxtard....stop in your tracks ..no research, no investigation...just yell fake...Cause' you don't understand it.....Duhh ddduuuhhh duh duh der dur
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
@NASACrooks Make it more interesting by bungee-jumping a 100 foot bridge with a 200 foot cord......
This filthy little maggot is one of the biggest trolls ever to infest YT, along, of course with it's cohorts ApoLlowasReal and spreadingThemuse. Three staggeringly stupid and uneducated proles masquerading as intelligent scientifically proficient experts, when in fact they've all got shit in their eyes. Dickheads.
Chev4206 1 month ago
@Chev4206
Mr twathead never went to school.He's a farmer from America,not an expert on anything other than shagging sheep.
NASACrooks 1 month ago
@NASACrooks At least they all graduated from school as expert hamburger scoffers.
Chev4206 1 month ago
@NASACrooks That's all you shit-kickers got?? Filthy little maggot &shagging sheep??
That's it.
Oh I see, you guys are part of the fuck-it generation and everything that you old guys did was bull-shit and fake.
You guys saw a FOX TV show and walked right right off the cliff along with every other hoaxtard lemming.
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
@Tweekerhead The thing you're hoping for is that the entire Nosa escapade will never be exposed as fake just to preserve your pathetic little wet dream. But it will be and fuck me will your life be boring then!! Imagine: walking from your bed to the computer and nothing to do. You could of course try to prise open the pages of your porno magazines.
Chev4206 1 month ago
@Chev4206 Whata' you talkin about?? You post more shit than anyone here and you don't even understand the subject.
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
@Tweekerhead There's nothing more entertaining than a thick stupid Ameriqueen, keep it up. Oh, fucked your mum yet?
Chev4206 1 month ago
@Chev4206 Some say this dog don't wanna' hunt.
You're like a football everybody wants to punt.
Pardon if I seem a little blunt... but.....
You're more than a bitch you're a cunt.
.
You should hear the pretty melody I made up to those pretty words.
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
@Tweekerhead Very funny. You're overstepping the mark somewhat, be careful of what you say.
Psychiatric help is widely available, and perhaps where you squat it might be free. Don't be embarrassed. Your condition is quite widespread around your neck of the woods. Your therapist will reassure you of that.
Chev4206 1 month ago
@Chev4206 Did you say something relevant?
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
@Tweekerhead Relevant to what you fucking uneducated stupid inbred Ameriqueen? Keep up the insults if you wish for worse. Plenty of appropriate put-downs are available and at the ready. What an insincere CUNT you are. Your true self ran down your mum's leg when she went to take a dump. What remained became you but your siblings were saved from the splash
Chev4206 1 month ago
@Chev4206 I finally met my soul-mate!!!
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
@Tweekerhead Fucking weirdo...............
Chev4206 1 month ago
@Chev4206 Stop stalking me, I told this wasn't going to work.
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
If you truly believe that men have not landed on the moon, you should not be allowed to use computers.
MikeNJ1964 2 months ago
WHEN WILL AN ACTUAL MANNED MOON LANDING WITH PROPER ASTRONAUTS HAPPEN???
Chev4206 2 months ago
JW, you a staw-manning again. The atmospheric gases surrounding an earth-based engine burn are not pure. Gases surrounding EVERY engine burn in atmosphere are chocked full of particulate matter, pollutants & dust--all things not found in the vacuum of space. These particulates, combined with atmospheric elements CAN combust & DO combust.
2nd, on earth, residual atmospheric gases are trapped inside the engine bell @ even in space they are inside the chamber.
LunarTuner 2 months ago
JW, you screwed up. Undeniably, you used the SIVb video & I can't believe you won't just admit it. Sure, there are 1,000s of copies of it and some have been edited, color-corrected, stabilized & a host of other things, but the Apollo 9 video you used IS THE SIV-B! To this date, you have ONLY compared engines that were either different engines or in different environments or photographic contexts...and it's not working for you, dude.
For ex: the vacuum chamber shot is NOT in the dark of space!
LunarTuner 2 months ago
WHEN WILL THE FIRST MOON LANDING TAKE PLACE?
Chev4206 2 months ago
It must suck to be a kid, trying to argue with grown men who know what they're talking about.
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@00:02
The same background seen at several different landing sites
Chev4206 2 months ago
@stalkervision Maybe I'm wrong but I did see the confession.
stalkervisions is tweekerhead's other account/s.
Chev4206 2 months ago
Apparently stalkervisions and tweekerhead are one and the same.
Exposed, dickhead
Chev4206 2 months ago
I've seen this before, classic troll tactic using 2 accounts to hammer away at your non-points that have absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter above. I asked this..."are there absolutely no properties of sound that CAN exist in or through ANY medium in a vacuum?" Now prove me wrong troll. I'm done with this conversation anyway so you can go back to painting your toenails or whatever you Trannys do when you're not trolling the web? LOL
Ghenghy 2 months ago
@Ghenghy No just keep propagating the same old stuff about sound in a vacuum, exhaust plume on the Moon...It's awesome.
Just keep going on and on...I love it!!
Better than TV sit-com.
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@Ghenghy Sound in a vacuum? Really?
Hhahahaa
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
If it's one thing I've learnt from perusing these back-and-for videos, it's that Jarrah deals solely with the argument, while his opponents largely resort to personal insults. Right or wrong, this guy deserves my respect way more than they do.
HuwReesMusic 3 months ago
@HuwReesMusic After having listened to your music and singing you too deserve some respect.
Subbed
Chev4206 3 months ago
@Chev4206 ;)
HuwReesMusic 3 months ago
@stalkervision You're right above Deadjesus' or whatever his name is this week, on the 'totem' pole.
I think he can actually elucidate a thought better than you.
In keeping with the thread of the video, let me ask....Do you really think there should be a plume of smoke on the Moon and sound generated in a vacuum? ;-))
No wonder only the scientifically illiterate believe in the hoax.
Par for the course.
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
@Tweekerhead You're still a twat.
Science or not
Chev4206 3 months ago
@Chev4206 It was established that you are no longer allowed to respond here on Y-Tube because of your lack of intellect.
Hey moron, what weighs more a ton of feathers or a ton of bricks?
staIkervisions 3 months ago
@staIkervisions 1/3rd of a ton of lead.
Chev4206 3 months ago
@Chev4206 You were told not to respond, yet you have.
staIkervisions 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Chev4206 I thought Vincent told to stop responding? You really think a 2kg hammer will fall faster than a 1kg hammer?
You're a total idiot, stop posting your ignorance. Kill yourself now.
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
@Tweekerhead Yes it does.
Try it you ignoramus.
Chev4206 3 months ago
@Chev4206 You actually think a 2kg hammer falls faster than a 1kg hammer ?
.
Hey look everybody...Chev is a complete moron!! ..And he happens to believe Apollo was faked.....figures.
staIkervisions 2 months ago
@Chev4206 Thinks a 2kg hammer falls faster than a 1kg hammer. huh...
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@Tweekerhead Ironically, this would seem to be a mute point Tweedledumb since the Apollo missions were faked. And while sound CAN exist in a vacuum, which was my point, why would NASA have rigged microphones to a camera to be used on the moon? Probably not. Who's the idiot now? lol
Ghenghy 2 months ago
@Ghenghy No,you said that sound travels in a vacuum,it does NOT,a simple fact that every kid learns in 6th grade.
Sound is a mechanical energy,it needs a medium to travel thru' like air. In a vacuum there is no mechanical medium for sound to travel, so there is NO sound in a vacuum you troglodyte homunculus.
Way to go putting your foot in your mouth, and qualifying yourself as the village idiot.
You have Dunning-Kruger effect, one of the worse cases.
No insults needed,you've done that yourself.
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@Tweekerhead You have shot yourself in the foot with this one and many thanks.
So sound cannot travel in a vacuum as it needs a medium to do so? Yes I agree.
So by the same token how can rocket propulsion be possible in a vacuum? There is no medium for it to thrust against. No air. No friction. No pressure.
Remember that outer space contains virtually nothing. Is that why its called space?
Try pushing against 'nothing'.
So how did Nosa accomplish all the Aponno missions?
Bullfuckingshit......
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 No, you just shot YOURSELF in the foot, as a matter of fact, you just blew it off! LOL
I could let you go on & on.
You don't understand how a rocket works in outer space, that's obvious, yet you argue as if you have an understanding about the subject at hand.
Think of a rocket as a controlled explosion.
If you have a bomb next to you in outer space and you hide behind a large metal plate, when the bomb goes off,what do you think will happen to you on the other side of that metal plate?
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@Tweekerhead Nothing.
A pressure wave cannot occur if there is no medium for it to travel through.
D I C K H E A D!
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 So you're saying if you're floating in outer space next to a metal shield and on the other side of the thick metal shield there's a bomb, when the bomb goes off, you're saying that there's NO reaction? :-)
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@Tweekerhead No reaction whatsoever- no medium for the pressure wave to traverse, no friction, no air or substantial quantities of any gas. Not a lot of anything really wouldn't you agree?
So Mr. Tweekthehead how is it possible for any action to have an equal and opposite reaction since a reaction is dependent on something to act against?
Ever heard of the expression 'empty space', where do you think it comes from?
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 You're hopeless, I haven't got time to sit here and explain to you how a rocket works much less how it works in the vacuum of space.
But just know that for every action there's an opposite reaction, no matter if there's an atmosphere you poor uneducated dolt.
The only knowledge you seem to have about empty space is THE VOID BETWEEN YOUR EARS.
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@Chev4206 And BTW... A freekin 2kg hammer falls at the same rate as a 1kg hammer just so you know.
That'll be $5.00 please... ..whata' idiot...tsk tsk tsk...(shaking my head)
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@Tweekerhead But the hammer, whatever weight, will always beat the feather.
Try it
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 No in a vacuum the hammer & feather will fall with the same acceleration, try it.
GGeeeeeezzzzz
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@Tweekerhead So in a vacuum both have no weight and their mass and size is irrelevant?
Thanks for confirming my argument.
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 The action of the rocket engine's combustion chambers and expansion nozzles on a high pressure fluid is able to accelerate the fluid to extremely high speed, and conversely this exerts a large reactive thrust on the rocket (an equal and opposite reaction according to Newton's third law) which propels the rocket forwards.
Honest to God, you're really a fraud trying to make the hoax-believers look bad right?
You're pulling my chain right? Nobody can be this dumb....
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@Tweekerhead What does the 'reactive thrust' act against? There is NOTHING in space.
Why are you bringing God into this? You don't know anything about me yet attest to God that you DO know. Careful what you say, God is watching you.
You're a pathetic waste of space Mr. Tweek so please consider commenting no longer.
I'm searching for the sick bucket.........
Yours,
Chev
PS. When you do reply I shall respond.
PPS because you're so predictable.
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 Look up Newton's 3rd law of motion you idiotic homunculus troglodyte.
Yes ..Hypergolic reactive rockets work in outer space without oxygen, because they have an oxidizer in them call Aerozine 50.
Sorry I can't waste any more time on a person who's not willing to learn anything beyond their realm, or who can't see beyond their nose for that matter.
You're really sad, really, I feel sorry for you.
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@Tweekerhead That old chestnut 'not willing to learn' bandied about by all trolls, shills and apollogists.
Standard reply. Are you not embarrassed by your predictability? Has Nosa not yet taught you more advanced evasion tactics? No of course not as all have been exposed.
Yes I know that hypergolic-driven rocket combustion works in outer space and never mind the aerozine shit. It all happens internally yet can react on what?
NOTHING
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 Well then never mind,you seem to have it all figured out then!
Let me ask you,how do they get those GOES satellites up there in the geosynchronous orbit at over 36,000km up?
Amazing that a kid like you could come along after over 50+ years of space flight and over 100 years of rocketry and see through the biggest hoax of all, that rockets don't function above the Earth's atmosphere. You must the smartest the most intuitive person that's ever lived.
I'm laffin' my ass off at you now.
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@Chev4206 I see you're employing the "ol' I'm too stupid & retarded to figure out how Apollo worked so it must be fake" defense mechanism.
I wish I could say you are predictable but honestly, you're so stupid I just can't figure out where you're going next.
I've heard of hoaxers who think that rockets wouldn't have thrust in outer space, but I've never met one.
Really hilarious chev...Just amazing.
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@Tweekerhead I'm not the only one to know this, there are plenty of forums where this is debated and the general bone of contention is that in outer space rocket thrust is impossible.
The speed achieved by rockets exiting the earths atmosphere is constant. Why do you reckon the latest Mars rocket has to travel around the sun first? Yes to gain extra speed, else why bother?
Sorry pal the onus is on you to prove that rocket thrust is possible in a vacuum.
I know it isn't so na na na-na na !!
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 " I'm not the only one to know this, there are plenty of forums where this is debated and the general bone of contention is that in outer space rocket thrust is impossible".
Wow. Really?
So we have never launched all those countless satellites that people say enable global telecommunications, weather forecasting, spying on our enemies (and I guess our friends too!). And also of course: the internet. So I guess you're not having this discussion. If only THAT were true!
eventcone 2 months ago
@eventcone You appear a decent enough chap a fellow Brit hopefully so I shall not be nasty in my reply.
Please do the background reading on this one, I have.
There is a real difference between low earth orbit and outer, or deep, space as you shall discover. No spacecraft ever has been halted in deep space and then allowed to resume its journey because it is impossible. Aponno 13 is a good example. Read about it, please.
Apollogists quote science and physics and never give proper answers.
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 "There is a real difference between low earth orbit and outer, or deep, space as you shall discover. No spacecraft ever has been halted in deep space and then allowed to resume its journey because it is impossible."
Well, that may well be true. But what has that to do with the presence of so many artificial Earth satellites (not to mention the spacecraft sent across the Solar System) demolishing your claim that rocket thrust is impossible in outer space?
eventcone 2 months ago
@Chev4206 Station keeping for geostationary satellites. No orbit is ultimately stable.
The forums you are looking at are populated with kooks who appear to blithely ignore Newtons Third Law.
You could save yourself a lifetime's worth of ridicule by simply looking it up.
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@krisdevalle Who the fuck invited you?
PISS OFF
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 I'm here to stay, lady.
Unless you pack in your bollocks and actually learn something.
Newton's third law. Applies to rocketry. Works pretty well.
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@krisdevalle Learn-apollogist's standard reply.
Ok Miss Valle. Forget this bollocks about Newton's 3rd Law and any shit relating to it. Earth physics do not and cannot apply in space. Space is a void. No friction. No pressure. NOTHING, fuck-all. Possibly like the volume of your intracranial void........
So, Aussie Twat how can an opposite reaction happen when there is nothing to act on? Nothing.
I'm here to stay, ladies......
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 The thrust acts against the rocket. There are simple explanations.
Shall I begin? Imagine two ice skaters facing each other. One is thrust, the other is the rocket. One pushes the other. Both move - thrust goes one way, rocket goes the other.
It's that simple.
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@krisdevalle Fuck me you ARE stupid. You have replied directly from the apollogist's tome i.e. proffer an unrelated answer in the (vain) hope that the thread of the conversation shall continue.
Nice try sheep-shagger !!
You're so easy, .......no.
Fucked up, ..............yes.
3/10.02 points for a reasonable answer but it has nothing to do with space. Reach round your skull and engage the braincell.
Space consists of nothing. So in 'nothing' how can 'anything' happen?
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 Space, in the example, is the ice. Frictionless void.
Ok? Space is ice. One skater is thrust. One skater is the rocket. Thrust pushes against rocket, both move in opposite directions.
I know this must be tough to get your head around, this is why I am trying to explain it in simple terms. It should be an example that children can understand.
Not even Jarrah White is going to back you on this because he understands how it works.
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@krisdevalle Excuse me please? Does your stupidity know no bounds?
Ice by way of its very composition is certainly NOT a frictionless void and the skaters are very much exerting a force-on the ice. Not a very good analogy, eh?
Keep trying
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 The point I am trying to make here is that the thrust acts against the rocket. The ice analogy is the closest I can get. To flip it perhaps, think of two people dangling on wires instead. When they push each other, both move away.
Do you understand this? I really am trying my best because this should be something you can get. Simply denying it is not helping you or anyone. It's not bad to have been mistaken or to have had an idea that can be corrected. I get things wrong too.
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@krisdevalle The thrust is expelled into what exactly? Please explain.
As for your analogies, well keep trying is all I will say.
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 Or say it is two people in the space station. Again, if they push each other, both will move apart.
This is the fundamental concept - Newton's Third Law as I said. This is why the rocket does not need air to thrust against, because the thrust acts only against the rocket. Please, instead of just calling me stupid over and over again, think about the concept, think about the examples. They really do work.
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@krisdevalle No they DO NOT !!
Don't give me the lecturing shit, please. I've been through this before and am still here after the dickheads and pathetic idiots have long gone.
Do you wish to join that elite club of failed apollogists?
I can point you in the right direction if you so desire to fulfill our dearest wishes. On second thoughts fuck that, stay here so I can put you down yet further.
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 Sorry, are you saying that if there are two people in zero gravity on the space station, not touching anything else but themselves, and they push each other, they will NOT move apart?
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@krisdevalle Your answer absolutely beggars belief. You are truly the product of astrorant2's 'apollo propagandist's' handbook of Aponno bullshit of Nosa lies and tactics.
Keep up the bad work and please don't stop trying
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 Can you please answer the question put to you, at least.
This is the fundamental concept that we are getting to. Two forces acting on each with no outside medium, ie, the two people in the space station example.
Now please, can you tell me your thoughts on this? If they are free floating, and they push each other, do they move apart, or not?
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@Chev4206 So by your logic, when the Saturn V was launched, it was pushing off of the surrounding air around the launch tower and that's how they got a 6,000,000lb. rocket off the ground?
If that's your logic, you're an absolute idiot.
I know how rockets create thrust in outer space, the onus isn't on me. I don't care what you believe, it's of no consequence what an idiot like you believes, you are irrelevant, amusing but totally irrelevant.
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@Tweekerhead I think we were nearly getting somewhere, but the idea of forces acting on each in the absence of a medium, such as the two people in freefall/zero gravity broke his brain and he had to just start insulting again.
Frankly I think this last obstacle remains because if he acknowledges I am right about this, I may actually be right about the rest, and that's a tough thing to face. So despite simple and easy to understand explanations, he must continue to disagree.
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@krisdevalle When will arguing with these kids' stop being amusing?
I mean, sound in a vacuum, exhaust plume with no atmosphere, it just doesn't get any better.
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@Chev4206 "..how can an opposite reaction happen when there is nothing to act on?".
In a rockets combustion chamber, the chemical reaction produces high temperature gases. These therefore want to expand very rapidly, but can do so in only one direction: out via the nozzle. In the opposite direction they come up against the chamber wall, and apply a pressure. This pressure is the thrust, equal and opposite to the rate of change of momentum of particles through the nozzle, per Newton's 2nd law.
eventcone 2 months ago
@eventcone
I hope some hoaxers will read & understand your short physics lecture.
Thanks.
moonhoaxlunatic1 2 months ago
@moonhoaxlunatic1 I hope so too. But I'm not holding my breath.
Still, if they want to challenge the validity of certain "space events" on a practical basis, they have to get into this stuff, or withdraw from the debate.
eventcone 2 months ago
@eventcone Nearly right, 3/10 for effort.
The chamber wall has NOTHING to do with thrust. No pressure and no friction in space means that any exhaust gases (and thrust) have NOTHING TO ACT AGAINST because on the other side of the nozzle there is nothing. In space thrust is impossible.
Why didn't Nosa simply turn aponno 13 around instead of sending it to the moon?
Refrain from lecturing me. It doesn't work and makes you appear daft.
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206
h t t p : / / science . howstuffworks . com/rocket . htm
Have a nice weekend.
moonhoaxlunatic1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Chev4206
h t t p : / / en . wikipedia . org/wiki/Momentum
Have a nice christmas.
moonhoaxlunatic1 2 months ago
@Chev4206
"How Apollo Flew To The Moon" by W. David Woods. Start from page 41 ("The Succesful Failure: Apollo 13".
And try some stuff about orbital mechanics.
And a Happy New Year.
moonhoaxlunatic1 2 months ago
@moonhoaxlunatic1 Get to fuck and stay there !!
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 "Refrain from lecturing me. It doesn't work and makes you appear daft".
You like to lecture yourself. And you sure are patronising. The amazing thing is that you are doing both from a position of almost total ignorance.
I'm not the one who appears daft. Your argument (I flatter it with that term) about exhaust gases having NOTHING TO ACT AGAINST is total gobbledegook. I suspect you know that and are just fishing.
So, how DID those satellites arrive in geostationary orbit?
eventcone 2 months ago
@eventcone Prove to me that beyond the rocket nozzle is something of substance that the exhausting gases can push against. In outer space, not the low altitudes that satellites are positioned from. Please.
Do this politely and correctly and I promise to never mention the subject again.
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 There is "nothing of substance" beyond a rocket nozzle that it's eflux "can push against", either in space or within the atmosphere. That is not how rockets work.
BTW - geostationary satellites are not postioned at "low" altitudes. They orbit at an altitude of about 22000 miles. Yet rockets work most effectively there, and beyond.
eventcone 2 months ago
@eventcone Wrong, sorry. Your score I must down-grade to 1/10 but nice try.
However...
You have been drawn into your own ignorance and answered my argument perfectly and for that I thank you so shall upgrade your score to 10/10 !!
Do you realise what you have stated?
Stupid aren't you? Now go away
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206
You're pathetic. A conceited fool that likes to stay foolish.
moonhoaxlunatic1 2 months ago
@moonhoaxlunatic1 Getting to fuck may take some effort but I'm patient. Take your time to ensure its a one way trip. Your concerted action is duly appreciated.
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206
You keep talking about things you know absolutely nothing about. At first it was travel in space, followed by physics and orbital mechanics, and now it's sexual reproduction?
Try a little conversation. And try the use of brains.
moonhoaxlunatic1 2 months ago
@Chev4206 I know exactly what I have stated.
You think you know, but you don't.
You play games here. I favoured you with the chance of some meaningful discussion that would have led to your enlightenment. But you're not interested. That's not why you are here.
Your position was always pathetically absurd, but in choosing not to engage honestly and genuinely, you have conceded defeat.
Now piss off worm. I won't feed TROLLS.
eventcone 2 months ago
@eventcone Standard offering from shills and prapagandists.
Answer my question you fucking little weasledick.
I am conceding defeat? Never, EVER.
Keep trying do so please.
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 Maybe we can return to the topic.
If there are two astronauts in the space station, floating freely in the middle of a chamber, and one pushes the other, what will happen?
Will they both move apart, or not?
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@krisdevalle Maybe you can fuck off
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 It's a pretty simple answer, dude. Why not try answering it?
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@krisdevalle What question is that?
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 What happens when two people are in free-fall, and one pushes the other? Does one stay still and the other move away, or do both move apart?
Same situation for two people floating inside the space station. If one pushes the other, what happens? Does one move, or both move?
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@Chev4206 Stay ignorant, that's the 'cool' thing to do. You're a rebel and no one can tell you anything.
In all actuality we all feel sorry for you by the way, that's why these men are making an effort to teach you, but your mind is closed tighter than cat's ass in water.
It's good to know that when you grow-up, if you ever grow-up that is....You'll never be in charge of anything.
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Tweekerhead Yeah yeah yeah blah blah blah fucking blah
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Tweekerhead Whats the latest news on the Turbo-Encabulator?
You are a dickhead but you made me laugh !!!
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 You're a kid and you make me laugh much harder than you'll ever know. Thank you for being totally oblivious to the fact that you are at the bottom of the food chain intellectually speaking;-))
here's your daddy..
watch?v=lBp5ag6SJH4
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@Chev4206 Hey yeah..Did you ever figure out that a rocket can have thrust in a vacuum yet Nimrod?
Kris, this guy/gal really is the poster child of Dunning-Kruger Effect.
Good diagnosis.
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@Tweekerhead Of course.
How does that affect your Dunning-Kruger Effectiveness?
Nosa shills and birds of a feather- a new cliche has developed.......
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 Sorry nice try at deflection, but if the shoe fits......
Did you ever figure that rockets have thrust in space dillweed?
Are trying to save face from such an ignorant blunder? As in ...Foot in mouth...:-)))))
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@Tweekerhead So if I blundered then shut the fuck up knobhead !!
I made no blunder whatsoever, this is your invention Mr. Nosabrant.
When cornered.... you know the routine to adopt. Pathetic.
Pa-fucking-thetic and it shows.
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 No..Have it your way...Rockets don't have thrust in a vacuum. We were all just messin' with ya'. You were right all along.
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@Tweekerhead Who or what are 'we'?
Of course there is thrust in a vacuum, I was wrong. How stupid of me.
Bang your head on the floor dickhead, there..... it hurts !! There's the proof. There IS thrust in a vacuum.
No more messing please Mr. NosaMuse
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 You were WRONG about this one issue. YES without a doubt.
How many other assumptions could you be wrong about? Mmmmmmmmm...
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@Tweekerhead No I was not wrong nor am I.
You're merely a lonely socially dis-functional sad person looking for an argument and this is apparent in most of your postings.
I can't help imagining you as some spotty teenager with no friends endlessly trolling Yt videos, perhaps even the occasional porn channel 'to keep your hand in'.
You definitely are no professional except a professional prick.
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 No, you were wrong. Rockets engines can and do have thrust in a vacuum.
It just shows how your premise in regards to the Moon landings is based on a assumption.
I'm sure you saw the FOX TV show back in 2001originally "Did We Land on the Moon" and was manipulated by the main stream media like most gullible fools, and believed it whole hardheadedly,
It's cool that you're an impressionable kid, but stop acting like you know it all..Know-it-all.
Shut-up,you might learn something.
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@Tweekerhead WITH regards.On AN assumption. Pathetic. Don't you learn anything in yankee schools except how to unwrap a hamburger?
Sorry son you're up against superior European intellect, you know-Your leaders !!
Fact. Look it up if you dare to smash your current thinking.
Then shut up.
What's FOX TV? Never heard of them.
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 Yeah, a superior European intellect that thinks rockets should have no thrust in outer space and there should be an exhaust plume in a vacuum on the Moon.
aaaahhhyeeeeeeaaaaahhhh. ..sure kid sure , Ok whatever you say.....
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@Tweekerhead When will the first manned moon landing take place? Your boyfriend apolloWasreal can't answer my question. Perhaps you can.
If you're struggling you could always ask grandpappy Astro.......
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 In your little world, never because rockets don't have thrust in space remember.
Two questions, how did NASA get those GOES satellites we use to predict hurricanes & weather up there in a 36,000km orbit and ....what color is the sky in your little world, is it blue like ours?
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@Tweekerhead WHEN WILL THE FIRST MANNED MOON LANDING TAKE PLACE?
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 Never because rockets have no thrust in space, at least in your little world.
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@Tweekerhead What a truly fucking stupid answer numbnuts.
What about future propulsion technologies? Surely sometime then?
Mr. Tweekthehead Assobrants favourite butt plugger.
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 Coming from an idiot like you .Those are all complements.They will go to the Moon when dilithium crystals are made for the 'Warp Drive " engines dude...
But...Wait how will warp drive work in a frictionless environment?
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@Tweekerhead Astrocunt2 is waiting. Or is it Astrococksuck1/1.9999. Or AstroBrant1.9998? Or a complete twat like you. You belong with each other. Keep up with the superb bad work.
If awards were attributed to shills and nasa cocksuckers you would be at the head of the queue. 10/10. Astrosuckcock1.9 your mentor has no chance.
Losers
both/all of you
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 I know a different kind of loser. One who is capable of answering simple questions for kids.
If two skydivers are falling, and one pushes the other, who moves? One or both?
Care to grow some balls, little one?
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@krisdevalle Skydivers where you thick Aussie cunt? What do earth-based personnel have to do with astroNots?
Hasn't Grandpappy Astrobrunt taught you anything?
DickHEAD.
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 Just a demonstration of Newton's Third Law.
The one you just can't seem to get your head around, because then it will mean that rockets really DO work in space!
So it delights me to ask this question over and over, knowing that you are too afraid to answer it, because it will prove you wrong.
How about two people floating in the space station, and the same thing happens? One moves, or both move? I look forward to your answer!
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@krisdevalle My answer is as follows in the form of a question.
When will the first manned moon landing take place?
WHEN WILL THE FIRST MANNED MOON LANDING TAKE PLACE?
When?
There is a host of trolls that can provide the answer. Ask one of them or all of them.
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 I believe it was July 20, 1969.
Why are you so afraid of answering a simple physics question? This is kids stuff. Ask any 12 year old. He or she will put you to shame.
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@krisdevalle I don't know any 12 year old. I am not 'afraid' of answering any question either numbnuts. The question stands:
when will the first manned moon landing take place? Try for an answer please !!
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 My man...Someday, a few years from now you may see these posts of your, if they're still here. You'll look at em' and probably be mortified in the realization of how obtuse and moronic you were.
If not, then God help this total ass-hole.
Why did God/Universe put ass-holes like you here?
Because God must love ass-holes, he made a helluva' lotta' vem'
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@Tweekerhead As always your posts are peppered with inconsistencies spelling errors and profoundly poor punctuation.
Sorry but I cannot understand what you write. Try using words of one syllable that way you may know what you're writing too.
WHEN WILL THE FIRST MANNED MOON LANDING TAKE PLACE?
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 I believe it was July 20, 1969.
You do seem to be either cowardly reluctant, or simple afraid, to answer this:
Two people are floating in the space station. One pushes the other. Who moves? One or both of them?
Doesn't seem too hard. You could ask a friend I suppose.
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@krisdevalle That is NOT the answer to the question I have raised. It's simple:
When will the first manned moon landing happen?
I shall answer your pathetic question though. I DON'T GIVE A FUCK!!
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 Awww what's the matter little chevy? Well! Let's pop that question in the too hard basket eh?
Goodness you do need help don't you? I know why you won't answer your proud little peacock! Answering this question means you admit rockets will work in space.
Answering it incorrectly will make you look even stupider! Which is why you won't answer it! So fucking good.
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@krisdevalle
When will the first manned moon landing happen?
Allow me to point you in the right direction. WHEN?
Just so you don't start throwing toys out of your pram I shall answer your question when you have satisfactorily answered mine, after all I asked first.
As an additional teaser try this, How will the first manned moon landing happen?
Remember not to use July 1969 as it never happened because it couldn't have. So stick to the present tense when answering, if you can!
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 When you get around to proving the Apollo 11 moon landing didn't happen, then I would say your question was valid.
Why couldn't it have happened? What particular physical or engineering obstacles prohibited it?
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@krisdevalle Sorry son don't try that on me and the question remains:
WHEN WILL THE FIRST MANNED MOON LANDING HAPPEN?
This requires an answer in the present tense. Stimulate that braincell of yours and give it a go.
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 The answer to your question resides in the history books, my ignorant friend.
Troll all you like. Your little bleatings won't change history. Maybe you could go edit wikipedia, see how far that gets you.
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@krisdevalle Who's bleating? You're losing because you can't give a proper answer to my question which remains.
When will the first manned moon landing happen?
Chev4206 2 months ago
Comment removed
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@Chev4206 Answer: When they mine the dilithium crystals then invent 'Warp-Drive' engines
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@Tweekerhead It's spelt with a 'D', dickhead. Everyone knows that.
When will the first manned moon landing happen?
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 I'm glad you're here. Obviously it's keeping you out of too much trouble.
Learned anything about Newton's Third Law yet, dummy?
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@krisdevalle Oh yes numb nuts.
In the physics that apply Only on Earth it says 'To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction'. It works thus and please do pay attention-Apply a force to something tangible, perhaps an atmosphere where friction and pressure exist and you'll get an opposite reaction. Good. Now in outer space where there is Nothing an equal and opposite reaction is impossible because there is Nothing to act back on it. Good.
For fucks sake.........!!
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 Which is why I keep asking you the question about two people floating in the space station and one pushes the other - who moves? One, or both?
Because this is it. This is the theory being demonstrated, and how rockets work.
I know you seem to enjoy trading insults - I do too. But maybe just for a moment, we could just discuss this as if we were two strangers having a pint. Do you think that is at all possible? A truce, for a few hours, perhaps.
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@krisdevalle I'm not sure about this as its too quick, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Just don't try any underhand tricks. I know them all.
OK
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 Okay. So I understand you still think rockets don't work in space.
This goes against a lot of aerospace engineers opinions, general knowledge and so on, and also makes it very difficult for a lot of space exploration and station keeping with geostationary satellites.
Okay, so with geostationary sats, they are out at about 36,000km. And no orbit is particularly stable - this is something we can look up.
So they do this thing called stationkeeping.
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@Chev4206 They use fuel to make minor corrections to stay in orbit.
But if rockets did not work in space, they couldn't do this.
These geostationary satellites give us satellite TV, weather data, and telecommunications.
So there's one thing. Otherwise they really would not last very long.
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@Chev4206 So I am not going to insult your intelligence - obviously you know how to research and look things up, so I am just going to go through it myself, and I guess it's up to you if you want to follow it.
Okay? No tricks, no insults, just figuring things out.
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@krisdevalle Lay off the Valium kiddo and definitely refrain from anymore Imodium because you are shitting everywhere particularly over yourself. Read your shit.
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 So two people are on the space station, floating free of any walls. They are facing each other.
Then one of them pushes on the other one.
As far as I understand, when this happens, both of them will move. Because there's nothing anchoring either of them, so the force is distributed equally.
I can't see a situation where only one of them moves, it just doesn't make sense to me. If it does for you, then go ahead and tell me, but this is what I understand to be true.
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@Chev4206 Same situation, say, with skydivers - freefalling - both facing each other, one pushes the other, I think that they will both move apart. So these two analogies are the closest I can get to describing how Newton's Third Law works in a basically frictionless environment. In both cases, there are no real outside forces acting on the people. Just themselves, pushing, Or one of them, really.
One pushes, they both move apart. That's what I understand.
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@krisdevalle You understand so wrong. See you in 2 days.
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 Could you at least do me the courtesy of explaining what I have gotten wrong with that example - the two people freefloating, pushing. If I have messed up with that, please let me know. Seriously.
If you are going to tell me I misunderstand, then at the very least tell me where I went wrong with that.
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@krisdevalle "If you are going to tell me I misunderstand, then at the very least tell me where I went wrong with that".
Well, of course, you didn't go wrong, as you know.
Admire you for trying, but I don't think you're going to get that discussion.
BTW - we can think of a rocket engine as 'pushing' on its propellants. It has to in order to accelerate them through the nozzle. The reaction to that 'push' is the thrust. But I know that'll come as no surprise to YOU..... :-)
eventcone 2 months ago
@eventcone I know... I am finding it particularly enjoyable to push the gentleman to a point where he must face this truth - you can see the actual point where his brain does a little flip and he has to shut down that line of logic because he just can't face it.
He's gone for long with this idea that a simple thought exercise to prove it wrong is really seeming to flip him back into denial or irrationality.
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@krisdevalle Have I not told you to fuck off numerous times?
Chev4206 2 months ago