MoonFaker: No Crater Addendum. PART 1
Loading...
Top Comments
All Comments (126)
-
7:22. Now do that for the Apollo LM. Same results.... LM produces less thrust per square inch.
-
Not true! Later analysis showed that Apollo 11's DPS was cut AFTER touchdown. BUT where the landing pads are makes no difference anyway. Armstrong said in the post-mission debriefing that his ability to judge LM motion relative to the Lunar surface was degraded by a thin sheet of material moving out HORIZONTALLY. To show thrust is not a factor in the video, recall Pressure=Force / Area:
Force(Thrust)=500lb, estimate the Area of plume to be a 6-inch circle. P= 500lb/(PI x (3in)^2)= ~17psi
-
@occhamite In the LM landing sequence, the engines are cut out just prior to touch-down. Yes, some of the dust would move horizontally, being displaced by the what? The thrust. However, considering that the LM is not exerting full thrust, the amount of dust displaced would be minimal. Larger particles could easily jump back up and, if nowhere else, hit the engine bell.
-
@occhamite Well, the kinetic energy associated the thrust is being used (mostly) with the heat energy, to damage and break apart the concrete. The thrust is applying force while the heat is generating thermal energy. Personally, I would expect the loose debris to bounce back up toward the engine. If the thrust vector fluctuates, then there might be some deflection accordingly.
-
@MrSkunkwork100 All true, BUT you'd be surprised how little, if any different the flying debris would look if only a large heating torch was applied. I did it to a chunk of concrete, as a mischievous teenager, and got basically the same result on a smaller scale. I don't think the thrust is really a factor here; for one thing, the loose material doesn't go very far, and I'd expect it to go in a different direction - more along the surface - if the thrust was pushing it.
-
@occhamite However, in this case, there is thrust being applied to the same surface as the heat energy from the exhaust gases. As the degradation of the material is occurring from the heat, the thrust is applying addition force to the material causing material to be dislodged.
-
@occhamite Yes, the heat energy applied to the same area for a prolonged period causes damage. If you took a propane torch and simply waived across the surface to be heated, there will be no or relatively no heat transferred. If you apply it to a surface and keep it there, the surface being heated will begin to get hotter as more of the heat energy is absorbed.
-
@MrSkunkwork100 "Of course you might be able to dig a hole with a rocket" Actually, that's not what's happening at all. The flying material is the result of HEAT not THRUST: It's a phenomenon called "Explosive Concrete Spalling" (google that). The mechanical stresses produced by thermal expansion and trapped superheated steam are the cause. Apply a propane torch (HEAT, no thrust)to a chunk of concrete - same result. Welders are taught NEVER weld on concrete. JW KNOWS all this.
9:37
MoonFaker: In Orbit or Grounded. PART 2by WhiteJarrah2,774 views- 7:33
MoonFaker: No Crater Addendum. PART 2by WhiteJarrah1,915 views
- 9:44
MoonFaker: Apollo Ham Sandwich. PART 2.by WhiteJarrah2,663 views
- 9:08
MoonFaker: 1/216th Gravity? PART 3.by WhiteJarrah1,715 views
- 5:58
MoonFaker: Silent Space. PART 2.by WhiteJarrah1,875 views
- 10:40
MoonFaker: No Crater. PART 2by WhiteJarrah8,849 views
- 10:46
MoonFaker: Propagandist Comedy of Errors. PART 1by WhiteJarrah2,905 views
- 10:26
MoonFaker: No Crater. PART 3by WhiteJarrah5,993 views
- 4:17
MoonFaker: No Crater. PART 5by WhiteJarrah7,471 views
- 2:00
Missing LM -- againby Astrobrant2556 views
- 5:56
MoonFaker: Rocks & Crocks. PART 2.by WhiteJarrah5,596 views
- 8:56
MoonFaker: LRO, Tracking The Tracks. PART 2by WhiteJarrah18,222 views
- 7:34
MoonFaker: Spider's Web. PART 1by WhiteJarrah3,355 views
- 2:56
MoonFaker: LRO, LRRR & LOLA Addendum. PART 4by WhiteJarrah896 views
- 9:51
MoonFaker: TETR-A? What TETR-A? PART 1by WhiteJarrah1,701 views
- 5:44
MoonFaker: Flagging The Dead Horses. PART 5by WhiteJarrah3,397 views
- 9:10
Prepare to be Busted - Mythbusters Debunked addendumby WhiteJarrah13,825 views
- 8:23
MoonFaker: LRO, The Tracks Addendum. PART 2by WhiteJarrah942 views
- 10:03
MoonFaker: LRO, The Halo Addendum. PART 1by WhiteJarrah2,542 views
- 10:59
MoonFaker: LRO, The Tracks Addendum. PART 1by WhiteJarrah1,319 views
The video you have for the Armadillo rocket, it hovered over the concrete for about 30 secs thus your crater. The LM was trying to land on the moon NOT hover. The LM engines shut down just above the surface and it fell the last few feet. The engines were powerful enough to make a blast crater but the LM didn't hover long enough to make a blast crater. BTW you can't quote Von Braun with his knowledge of the moon in 1953!
jim6584 1 year ago 4
It may have already been said but if you are going to compare apples to oranges, I'm not interested in anything you're trying to put forward. If you are trying to convince anyone, even yourself, that the lunar landings were faked, compare apples to apples!
Gather your simulated lunar dust, your liquid fueled rocket engine, all in a controled (proven) vacuum. Then I will listen.
What I did notice under the lander was a large amount of stones and rubble. The kind one would see if a layer of....
AHGlasher 1 year ago 2