MoonFaker: No Crater. PART 3
Loading...
Uploader Comments (WhiteJarrah)
All Comments (190)
-
Wasn't it called the DPS engine, not the DSP?
DPS means Descent Powered Stage, right? I'm not sure.
-
@LunarTuner Yes, though I am new to discussing the moon landings, I am quickly seeing how pointless his comparisons are!
-
@WhiteJarrah They don's use maximum power when landing. Aircraft like the Harrier and the V-22 Osprey DON'T leave craters. If you put the exhaust end of the jet engine facing the ground and ran it at full power, you might actually do some damage, but even as you pointed out in the previous video: engines on jetliners are facing horizontal, not vertical.
-
@WhiteJarrah Again, Jarrah: the 747 engine experiment, doesn't have any relevance to the lunar landings, as in the case of the lunar landings, OR the landings of a 747 in earths atmosphere, they don't use FULL TRHUST. They use fractions of the full thrust capability. The Lunar landing module had thrust adjustment of 10% - 60% capacity. If they were burning full thrust, they would have never made it to the surface and they would have run out of fuel.
-
@stalkervision, That's Jarrah's problem, not mine! If he's going to make video after video to persuade people that Apollo scientists & astronauts are either liars or dolts, he better put up or shut up. The point is that he's making invalid, pointless comparisons that are not only inaccurate, but they're pointless! Even applying 2600-3000 lbs. of thrust through a similar engine bell, ON EARTH, during a descent profile matching the LM's would be more useful. He's got the cash. ;)
-
@stalkervision, I'm glad you think my thoughts are amazing. On earth, heat can be transferred through convection. It can't in a vacuum. A blow torch will crack cement easier on earth than in a vacuum...especially when it spends 3 minutes in one place.
Why doesn't Jarrah show an example of a vehicle hoovering with 2600-3000 lbs. of thrust in a vacuum for 10-15 seconds and see what happens? Instead, he pulls out these completely different scenarios. Oh yeah....that's science.
-
surely you would increase thrust, not reduce it, if you wanted to slow the lem's descent, so as to counter the effect of moon gravity?? is that right or am I being dumb?
-
Problem. Your armadillo videos show the engine running for a long time and then digging a very small blast crater. Concrete is also much softer than bedrock. Now the astronauts were DESCENDING and didn't get within range of the dust for about 30 seconds. 13 seconds later, they were on the ground. The dust was blasted away, but there should be no crater.
-
When the LM touched down, it was not running at 10,000 PSI. You have to throttle a descent engine down to start to descend. This video is based on the observation that they ran the engine on the surface at 10,000PSI
-
@felixq78, 1 thing is certain, heat is dissipated VERY rapidly in a vacuum, unlike on earth.
I never thought no disturbance "at all" under the LM. Armstrong said 1 min. after his first step, "The descent engine did not leave a crater of any size. It has about 1 foot clearance on the ground. We're
essentially on a very level place here. I can see some evidence of rays emanating from the descent engine, but a very insignificant amount. "
So, no "crater" but stuff blew sideways as it should.
10:40
MoonFaker: No Crater. PART 2by WhiteJarrah8,849 views- 9:04
MoonFaker: No Crater. PART 4by WhiteJarrah5,215 views
- 11:00
MoonFaker: No Crater Addendum. PART 1by WhiteJarrah2,180 views
- 9:11
Moonfaker: Exhibit B. PART 1by WhiteJarrah6,405 views
- 7:01
MoonFaker: Premature Separationby WhiteJarrah3,591 views
- 4:17
MoonFaker: No Crater. PART 5by WhiteJarrah7,471 views
- 10:29
MoonFaker: Radioactive Anomaly. PART 7by WhiteJarrah2,998 views
- 9:29
Moonfaker: Exhibit A. PART 2by WhiteJarrah9,193 views
- 10:47
MoonFaker: Exhibit D. PART 1.by WhiteJarrah8,684 views
- 10:49
MoonFaker: Radioactive Anomaly. PART 19.by WhiteJarrah2,294 views
- 10:54
MoonFaker: Radioactive Anomaly. PART 16by WhiteJarrah5,558 views
- 10:50
MoonFaker: Radioactive Anomaly. PART 18by WhiteJarrah2,002 views
- 7:32
MoonFaker: LRO at 50km. PART 3by WhiteJarrah3,000 views
- 10:42
MoonFaker: Exhibit C. PART 6by WhiteJarrah3,595 views
- 10:27
MoonFaker: Exhibit C. PART 5by WhiteJarrah7,447 views
- 10:48
MoonFaker: Exhibit C. PART 3by WhiteJarrah6,346 views
- 7:39
MoonFaker: Shifting Stars EMBOSSEDby WhiteJarrah2,079 views
- 8:56
Moonfaker: Exhibit A. PART 1by WhiteJarrah17,257 views
- 10:45
MoonFaker: Why Not Go Back? PART 1.by WhiteJarrah10,322 views
- 10:15
MoonFaker: Radioactive Anomaly. PART 5.by WhiteJarrah3,849 views
Why are we comparing multi-engine aircraft on earth at full throttle to landing in 1/6th earth's G-force? A Harrier is about 12 times more powerful. Same with an Osprey. Yet all we have is one guy's hearsay that they made a 1-foot crater on earth. And the LM shut off 9 feet above the surface.
The Pixel hoovered for 3 MINUTES in earth environment! Heat is more of a factor in a convective scenario. 500 lbs. + 3 minutes + earth = more disturbance.
JW, you're a champion of apples vs. oranges.
LunarTuner 1 year ago
@LunarTuner
I discussed the Harrier and 747 in this video because people such as Jay Windley, the Clavius webmaster, have previously cited these aircraft as proof that the lunar module engine couldn't leave a blast crater period.
If you want to talk about comparing apples to oranges, take it up with those who use the 747 and Harrier as "proof" for Apollo.
WhiteJarrah 1 year ago