Apollo 40th Anniversary - Apollo 11 Animation

[HuwReesMusic]

This looks just as real as the original footage...

[Tyrannobeast]

@HuwReesMusic Except for the fact, of course, that the original footage was taken on the moon.

[HuwReesMusic]

@Tyrannobeast Incorrect.

[Tyrannobeast]

@HuwReesMusic Thank you for your prompt reply. What points would you like use to justify this position that have not been thoroughly disproved?

[HuwReesMusic]

@Tyrannobeast Sorry, I don't have the time. Look up Jarrah White's channel for good (for the mostpart) scientific investigation into to the footage.

[Tyrannobeast]

@HuwReesMusic I'm sorry, but a cursory analysis of the videos betrays more disregard of opposing explanations than actual technical experience, utilizing circumstantial evidence more than anything. However, I have to say WhiteJarrah has put substantially more thought and effort into compiling what he perceives as evidence for an opposing hypothesis than most detractors, which is greatly appreciated.

[HuwReesMusic]

@Tyrannobeast Yes, obviously he is not an expert - but as you said, he has compiled most of the argument there are lots of renowned scientists and experts in this field who claim that a manned mission to the moon is impossible. I'm not completely sold on this, I must admit - but as a physicist, I cannot look at the footage from the Apollo missions and accept that it is legitimate. I think one 'point' I find dubious is the lack of any disturbance below the landing craft.

[Tyrannobeast]

@HuwReesMusic To be sure that's the most problematic to explain, because (of course) the Lunar surface is a very alien environment and things don't work how we're used to. I suspect that the minimal crater is from several factors- throttling the engine down, both to avoid bouncing around above the surface and to reduce the amount of dust obscuring the view, and simply that the engine exhaust escapes very rapidly in an airless environment, not staying in a neat column as it does in atmosphere.

[HuwReesMusic]

@Tyrannobeast As Neil switched the engine off around 5 seconds after they touched the ground, there most definitely be something there - even if he switched it off many metres above ground, due to the lack of atmosphere and g/6 gravity, the thruster should have caused a massive spread of fine lunar dust. While all other arguments can be argued scientifically from both sides, I honestly cannot see how this one can be swept under the carpet.

[Tyrannobeast]

@HuwReesMusic All right, I checked all the numbers, this should be helpful.

The DPS put out about 3000 pounds of thrust at cut-off. The diameter of the engine bell exit was about 28 inches, so a little pi*r^2 puts the bell area at about 1930 inches^2. Divide the thrust by the area and you get around 1.5 psi.

Obviously the numbers here are not super-precise, but the ballpark estimates are that the engine exerted less force on the surface than the Astronauts hopping around.

[HuwReesMusic]

@Tyrannobeast And yet the astronauts left bootprints, but the thruster did nothing to the surface?

[Tyrannobeast]

@HuwReesMusic No. Even with that relatively minuscule amount of pressure on the surface, some areas were fairly well swept, with about an inch or two off the surface (you can also see the small streaks of regolith on the edge of the engine where the dust was thrown about). But the Astronauts did affect the surface more, because they were putting more pressure per square inch with each step, a result of their weight being more focused than the engine exhaust, even with a smaller total force.

[HuwReesMusic]

@Tyrannobeast Hmmm, well I guess we'll have to just disagree here - I can't see any disturbance whatsoever below the lander, and regardless of the plume being more spread out than a boot, it should 'dig down' just as much if the PSI for both are comparable.

[Tyrannobeast]

@HuwReesMusic I guess that's fine. It's been nice talking.

[dalek14mc]

@HuwReesMusic-There are photographs showing clear stryations in the lunar regolith.

And no, it shouldn't 'dig down.'

[HuwReesMusic]

@dalek14mc Check out this series - it'll change your mind. watch?v=yEQNZQdJFtI

[dalek14mc]

@HuwReesMusic-I'e already seen that, it doesn't prove anything. The reason why it shouldn't dig 'down' is because if they used anything above what they used, they would have shot back into space.

[HuwReesMusic]

Jarrah did a series on this, check out his playlist "Moonfaker: No Crater"

I haven't had the time to go through the numbers, but it seems acceptable at face value. Right, I'm off to bed mate, good chatting!

[Tyrannobeast]

@HuwReesMusic Thank you for staying civil, too often discussions like this degrade into name calling and smear attacks. It's refreshing to have a reasonable debate with someone who has genuine reasons to believe that Apollo was hoaxed.

[HuwReesMusic]

@Tyrannobeast As far as I'm concerned, the physics proves it. The pressure required would have dug a small way down into the dirt/rock. Regardless of whether this is the case or not, there is NO disturbance whatsoever under the lander - this is scientifically impossible.