Maybe in a few years from now people will not belive in the concord supersonic passenger airplane. They will say something like...its fake, fake photos, fake videos...
@prototypo And how many of those who know about concorde know that Tu-144 was first supersonic passenger plane. There are still people who think that there weren't any concentration camps during WW II.
In this time of rampant conspiracy theories, it is important to note that independent evidence, from non-governmental observers, documents large objects exhibiting exactly the configuration and behavior of the Apollo spacecraft en route to and from the Moon on all the Apollo missions. In fact, the final Lunar Orbiter mission was also tracked optically in lunar orbit.
The expectation of having a blast crater under the LM is flawed. The DC-X was a test flight program of a vertical takeoff and landing rocket. On one of its last flights, it made an emergency landing outside of the pad area. Despite the hydrogen/oxygen engine producing a thrust of some 60,000 pounds (about 20 times the thrust of the LM descent engine!), the engine produced a mark on the desert floor that was barely recognizable.
Oh christ just google it and get an explanation the lack of blast crater has been explained a thousand times but there's always some retard like you who just never got the word.
@NASAvsPETE Not necessarily, NvP, the bell at the bottom of the LEM was quite large and the thrust was spread out. For a test, spray compressed air at some soft dirt and see what you get. You might be surprised.
@dethaduj no dont do it on dirt as the moon dust is nothing like dirt it is more like flour and the exhaust has a similar pressure to a leaf blower so aim it at a pile of flour and see what happens. you will get a huge cloud. these moon vids are so bad if you showed them today like it had just happened the world would laugh at you because it is easy to see they have been faked including spot lights and other things.
@beastwars "CLOUD"??? There's no atmosphere on the Moon. The particles wouldn't "billow" in a cloud as on Earth. The videos from inside the landers the last few seconds during descent show exactly how the dust particles would move in a vacuum. They can't "hang" like a cloud in an air that doesn't exist.
Landing schmanding. where are the sheer 35 thousand foot mountains and those continental wide canyons that go thousands of feet below the surface. And what about the intense sun reflected florescent glare that the moon reflects to the earth that I not only see with my naked eye but even more intensely when I view the moon with my binoculars?
if you believe what jay windley or phil plait say there should not be dust coming up or as much as what there was anyway.
then just before it lands you can briefly see it clearly then there is heaps of dust again then a second after they touch down you see a clear picture with no sign of dust.with the amount that was kicked up there should have been dust still settling back to the ground.sorry but the footage is a complete fake and a bad one at that
@beastwars Your reasoning about the dust seems to imply that You believe there is an atmosphere on the Moon, supporting the dust-particles. In reality, since there is no air, every little dust-particle follows a perfect ballistic trajectory and settles just as fast as it is flung up.
@YDDES never have i implied or said there is an atmosphere on the moon not that it makes a lot of difference to the fact the dust would not settle just as fast as it was flung up due to the lack of gravity to force it back down it would travel a lot further and faster and with out the strong gravity we have here it would hang in the space much longer.
@beastwars The dust would not "hang" in the space. Even particles smaller than grains of sand would follow the same type of trajectories as big boulders. They fall at the same speed as they are flung up at. Once a particle reaches the top of its trajectory curve, it takes exactly the same time to go down again as it took to rise.
@YDDES well you obviously dont understand what you have been reading because gravity is what has the most effect on an object not atmosphere and regardless of somethings weight it will fall at free fall speed which is different here on earth to what it would be on the moon because of the gravity of the moon it would fall much slower. issac newton was talking about here on earth not in space and not on the moon. you are a fool and i will not respond to you anymore as its a waste of time.
You underestimate the effect of an atmosphere on dust particles. Small particles can remain suspected in the atmosphere for some time (which indeed seems to be what you are expecting here on the Moon). This simply doesn't happen on the Moon.
"issac newton was talking about here on earth not in space and not on the moon." Newtonian physics are equally valid everywhere (reference frames approachling light speed aside). On the Moon, a dust particle would follow a purely Newtonian ballistic trajectory. On Earth, there's a sea of air particles it will interface with. In addition to keeping the dust particle from going too far, it will allow it to remain in air a lot longer than would be allowed without an atmosphere.
@beastwars Running away? I didn't say objects on the Moon fall at the same speed as on Earth. I said they fall at the same speed as they are flung up. That means: They deccelerate on the way up, and accelerate on the way down. It takes EXACTLY the same time to come down as it takes to go up. On EVERY celestial body without an atmosphere. I hope You don't run away because You don't understand basic physics...?
I recommend You to study a bit more before accusing the astronauts and NASA of lying.
@YDDES so if i fire something up into the air at 300mph it will fall at that speed will it.lol no it wont it wont fall any faster then free fall speed. maybe it is you who needs to study. when astronots jump on the moon they had a floating effect and seem to land a bit slower than they jumped up. for real answers go to moonfaker free forums.
@beastwars In vacuum an object will deccelerate at the same rate on its way up, as it will accelerate on its way down. If You fire something upwards from the surface with 300 mph, it will have reached 300 mph when it hits the ground again. What would brake the speed in a vacuum? It's just simple Newtonian physics. Better to study REAL physics than relay on "fake" sites...
@beastwars What do You meen with "free fall speed"? At Moon, an object falling free from "infinite" distance will reach a velocity of 2.38 km/sec (which is also the escape velocity) before hitting the ground. From a lesser distance it will, of course, gain a lower speed.
Don't take my words for it. Check some scientific information. Then You will probably not "lol" so much...
@beastwars -- Correction: If you fire something upwards from the ground in an environment with no atmosphere, then it will hit the ground at exactly the same speed that it started at.
Go to high school.
Take a physics class.
Read a book.
Dust cannot "billow" in a vacuum. There can be no "cloud" on the moon.
If the dust looked any differently than it does in these videos, you would know it was fake.
@beastwars What I wrote down here applies to every planet, moon or asteroid with no atmosphere, regardless of their force of gravity. Check some physics books or websites (not the "hoax"-promoters). You may learn a lot!
"There should have been dust still settling back to the ground." You confuse Earth with the Moon. Without an atmosphere, dust will follow purely ballistic trajectories. No "settling."
Do some research before you make such bold statements (though be careful, doing research and educating yourself will convince you the Apollo landings really did happen... )
@Boy75402 maybe it is you who needs to learn some thing as you just helped make the landings even faker. even though the dust will eventually settle back to the ground under your theory it would still be floating around today which would have made any clear video impossible because all you would have been able to see is a thick dust cloud.
I think you misunderstood what I was saying. The dust is thrown onto a ballistic trajectory, where it lands, it lands. There's no reason to expect a cloud of dust to still be present a few seconds after landing. The lack of an atmosphere makes a lot of difference in regard to the behavior of the perturbed dust particles.
And LOL at "you just helped make the landings even faker."
@aeroflying Four refers to the Lunar Module's forward speed (4ft per second) and five is the descent rate (5ft per second). They're displayed on the LM's instrument panel.
americans, please do something better for mankind than fighting in iraq,afghanistan and another countries, get us back to Moon as soon as possible, exploration of space is better way to spend your money. I hope there will be moon base in the end of my life
NASA is a crippled form of the giant it once was. It set a deadline for a return to the moon at the end of the next decade. More than half a century after the first landing is when NASA has decided it will return men to the moon.
The moon has a lot of helium 3 and other resources, so what you are saying isn't really true. Besides the moon is much closer and therefore the only option for a base.
because landing trajectory was ballistic from its orbital position. at the end of the flight you can see how descent becomes more vertical as retro-rockets do its duty to land softly the LEM and velocity decreases....land gravity is now pulling down stronger.
Loscantos, right after the blue 'contactlight' astronaut Scott switched off the engine of the LM.
The Falcon was several thousand pounds heavier than the previous moonlanders and it kind of fell to the Moon in a way that rattled the LM-cabin. Clearly you can hear "Irwin shout 'bam!" or something like that.
And it's clearly visible in this video by the way.
I guess you Hoax Believers are the same people who think that Aliens would travel across Interstellar Space to abduct drunk, white-trash rednecks!
LOL!
LindaStevensBZ 4 months ago
cool
9111346 9 months ago
Maybe in a few years from now people will not belive in the concord supersonic passenger airplane. They will say something like...its fake, fake photos, fake videos...
prototypo 11 months ago
@prototypo And how many of those who know about concorde know that Tu-144 was first supersonic passenger plane. There are still people who think that there weren't any concentration camps during WW II.
Fontomovsky 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In this time of rampant conspiracy theories, it is important to note that independent evidence, from non-governmental observers, documents large objects exhibiting exactly the configuration and behavior of the Apollo spacecraft en route to and from the Moon on all the Apollo missions. In fact, the final Lunar Orbiter mission was also tracked optically in lunar orbit.
Synthetrix 1 year ago
No dust 'cloud' would form on the moon as some of you suggest. Particles would simply move out and away radially.
dethaduj 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The expectation of having a blast crater under the LM is flawed. The DC-X was a test flight program of a vertical takeoff and landing rocket. On one of its last flights, it made an emergency landing outside of the pad area. Despite the hydrogen/oxygen engine producing a thrust of some 60,000 pounds (about 20 times the thrust of the LM descent engine!), the engine produced a mark on the desert floor that was barely recognizable.
Synthetrix 1 year ago
@NASAvsPETE
Oh christ just google it and get an explanation the lack of blast crater has been explained a thousand times but there's always some retard like you who just never got the word.
TheJomogogo 1 year ago
@NASAvsPETE Not necessarily, NvP, the bell at the bottom of the LEM was quite large and the thrust was spread out. For a test, spray compressed air at some soft dirt and see what you get. You might be surprised.
dethaduj 1 year ago
@dethaduj no dont do it on dirt as the moon dust is nothing like dirt it is more like flour and the exhaust has a similar pressure to a leaf blower so aim it at a pile of flour and see what happens. you will get a huge cloud. these moon vids are so bad if you showed them today like it had just happened the world would laugh at you because it is easy to see they have been faked including spot lights and other things.
beastwars 1 year ago
@beastwars Remember, aim that leaf blower straight down at the flour. Let me know what results you get.
dethaduj 1 year ago
@beastwars "CLOUD"??? There's no atmosphere on the Moon. The particles wouldn't "billow" in a cloud as on Earth. The videos from inside the landers the last few seconds during descent show exactly how the dust particles would move in a vacuum. They can't "hang" like a cloud in an air that doesn't exist.
YDDES 1 year ago
Landing schmanding. where are the sheer 35 thousand foot mountains and those continental wide canyons that go thousands of feet below the surface. And what about the intense sun reflected florescent glare that the moon reflects to the earth that I not only see with my naked eye but even more intensely when I view the moon with my binoculars?
imnazhole 1 year ago
@imnazhole I'm not sure what you are asking here. We did not land on the moon because it is bright?
dethaduj 1 year ago
Simply amazing!!!
topxauen 1 year ago
inb4 conspiracy theo-
Shit, I'm too late.
vava54own 1 year ago
there is a few strange things with this video.
if you believe what jay windley or phil plait say there should not be dust coming up or as much as what there was anyway.
then just before it lands you can briefly see it clearly then there is heaps of dust again then a second after they touch down you see a clear picture with no sign of dust.with the amount that was kicked up there should have been dust still settling back to the ground.sorry but the footage is a complete fake and a bad one at that
beastwars 1 year ago
@beastwars Your reasoning about the dust seems to imply that You believe there is an atmosphere on the Moon, supporting the dust-particles. In reality, since there is no air, every little dust-particle follows a perfect ballistic trajectory and settles just as fast as it is flung up.
YDDES 1 year ago
@YDDES never have i implied or said there is an atmosphere on the moon not that it makes a lot of difference to the fact the dust would not settle just as fast as it was flung up due to the lack of gravity to force it back down it would travel a lot further and faster and with out the strong gravity we have here it would hang in the space much longer.
beastwars 1 year ago
@beastwars The dust would not "hang" in the space. Even particles smaller than grains of sand would follow the same type of trajectories as big boulders. They fall at the same speed as they are flung up at. Once a particle reaches the top of its trajectory curve, it takes exactly the same time to go down again as it took to rise.
Already sir Isaac new that...
YDDES 1 year ago
@YDDES well you obviously dont understand what you have been reading because gravity is what has the most effect on an object not atmosphere and regardless of somethings weight it will fall at free fall speed which is different here on earth to what it would be on the moon because of the gravity of the moon it would fall much slower. issac newton was talking about here on earth not in space and not on the moon. you are a fool and i will not respond to you anymore as its a waste of time.
beastwars 1 year ago
@beastwars
You underestimate the effect of an atmosphere on dust particles. Small particles can remain suspected in the atmosphere for some time (which indeed seems to be what you are expecting here on the Moon). This simply doesn't happen on the Moon.
Boy75402 1 year ago
@beastwars
"issac newton was talking about here on earth not in space and not on the moon." Newtonian physics are equally valid everywhere (reference frames approachling light speed aside). On the Moon, a dust particle would follow a purely Newtonian ballistic trajectory. On Earth, there's a sea of air particles it will interface with. In addition to keeping the dust particle from going too far, it will allow it to remain in air a lot longer than would be allowed without an atmosphere.
Boy75402 1 year ago
@beastwars Running away? I didn't say objects on the Moon fall at the same speed as on Earth. I said they fall at the same speed as they are flung up. That means: They deccelerate on the way up, and accelerate on the way down. It takes EXACTLY the same time to come down as it takes to go up. On EVERY celestial body without an atmosphere. I hope You don't run away because You don't understand basic physics...?
I recommend You to study a bit more before accusing the astronauts and NASA of lying.
YDDES 1 year ago
@YDDES so if i fire something up into the air at 300mph it will fall at that speed will it.lol no it wont it wont fall any faster then free fall speed. maybe it is you who needs to study. when astronots jump on the moon they had a floating effect and seem to land a bit slower than they jumped up. for real answers go to moonfaker free forums.
beastwars 1 year ago
@beastwars In vacuum an object will deccelerate at the same rate on its way up, as it will accelerate on its way down. If You fire something upwards from the surface with 300 mph, it will have reached 300 mph when it hits the ground again. What would brake the speed in a vacuum? It's just simple Newtonian physics. Better to study REAL physics than relay on "fake" sites...
YDDES 1 year ago
@beastwars What do You meen with "free fall speed"? At Moon, an object falling free from "infinite" distance will reach a velocity of 2.38 km/sec (which is also the escape velocity) before hitting the ground. From a lesser distance it will, of course, gain a lower speed.
Don't take my words for it. Check some scientific information. Then You will probably not "lol" so much...
YDDES 1 year ago
@beastwars -- Correction: If you fire something upwards from the ground in an environment with no atmosphere, then it will hit the ground at exactly the same speed that it started at.
Go to high school.
Take a physics class.
Read a book.
Dust cannot "billow" in a vacuum. There can be no "cloud" on the moon.
If the dust looked any differently than it does in these videos, you would know it was fake.
But it was not.
prosperomage 4 months ago
@beastwars
Beastwars you are FULL OF SHIT.
A dust particle will hang suspended by air and SLOWLY float down, gravity will pull it down but the atmosphere will impede it much more.
Dickwit moonturd hoaxfag.
TheJomogogo 1 year ago
@beastwars What I wrote down here applies to every planet, moon or asteroid with no atmosphere, regardless of their force of gravity. Check some physics books or websites (not the "hoax"-promoters). You may learn a lot!
YDDES 1 year ago
@beastwars
"There should have been dust still settling back to the ground." You confuse Earth with the Moon. Without an atmosphere, dust will follow purely ballistic trajectories. No "settling."
Do some research before you make such bold statements (though be careful, doing research and educating yourself will convince you the Apollo landings really did happen... )
Boy75402 1 year ago
@Boy75402 maybe it is you who needs to learn some thing as you just helped make the landings even faker. even though the dust will eventually settle back to the ground under your theory it would still be floating around today which would have made any clear video impossible because all you would have been able to see is a thick dust cloud.
beastwars 1 year ago
@beastwars
I think you misunderstood what I was saying. The dust is thrown onto a ballistic trajectory, where it lands, it lands. There's no reason to expect a cloud of dust to still be present a few seconds after landing. The lack of an atmosphere makes a lot of difference in regard to the behavior of the perturbed dust particles.
And LOL at "you just helped make the landings even faker."
We see how your perception of reality works ; )
Boy75402 1 year ago
What does four five mean?
aeroflying 1 year ago
@aeroflying Four refers to the Lunar Module's forward speed (4ft per second) and five is the descent rate (5ft per second). They're displayed on the LM's instrument panel.
galoon 1 year ago
@galoon
Excellent. Thank you!
aeroflying 1 year ago
americans, please do something better for mankind than fighting in iraq,afghanistan and another countries, get us back to Moon as soon as possible, exploration of space is better way to spend your money. I hope there will be moon base in the end of my life
LordCarlSagan 1 year ago 14
@LordCarlSagan
i hope so too
monimstarfox 1 year ago
NASA is a crippled form of the giant it once was. It set a deadline for a return to the moon at the end of the next decade. More than half a century after the first landing is when NASA has decided it will return men to the moon.
redmartianresident 1 year ago
@LordCarlSagan
no
more a mars base. on the moon is nothing to find. no resource. nothing usefull then stones full of iron ore
its true.
but it is awesome that they really landed on the moon :D i wish i would land on moon too
predatortheme 1 year ago
@predatortheme
The moon has a lot of helium 3 and other resources, so what you are saying isn't really true. Besides the moon is much closer and therefore the only option for a base.
askjiir 1 year ago
hadley rille in the background :)
jpourkav 2 years ago
because landing trajectory was ballistic from its orbital position. at the end of the flight you can see how descent becomes more vertical as retro-rockets do its duty to land softly the LEM and velocity decreases....land gravity is now pulling down stronger.
loscantos 2 years ago 4
Loscantos, right after the blue 'contactlight' astronaut Scott switched off the engine of the LM.
The Falcon was several thousand pounds heavier than the previous moonlanders and it kind of fell to the Moon in a way that rattled the LM-cabin. Clearly you can hear "Irwin shout 'bam!" or something like that.
And it's clearly visible in this video by the way.
Rob260259 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Why is the ground not getting closer as they land? Its only passing by laterally. Hmmmm
standauffish 2 years ago
because you are an idiot?
agdstardust 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I gather you have never landed in an airplane. If you had you would know what I am talking about
standauffish 2 years ago
@agdstardust
Be careful of the curses you throw on people.
aeroflying 1 year ago
Comment removed
cripplewoox 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
soundstage!
johncopey 3 years ago
@johncopey dickhead
alienhunter36 1 year ago
@johncopey: dickweed!
dethaduj 1 year ago