To The Moon

No shortage of video of the lunar rover though.

As far as I am concerned we must wait the crewed fly by next year.
 
I never knew, until now that NASA claims to have lost the engineering blueprints for the Eagle Lander, Moon Buggy and the engines for the Lander. I knew they had claimed to have lost the original landing footage and audio, but this is beyond parody now.

Of course, modern engineers would love to pour over the tech used to propel things in a total vacuum.
 
PlunkettsGhost said:
I never knew, until now that NASA claims to have lost the engineering blueprints for the Eagle Lander, Moon Buggy and the engines for the Lander. I knew they had claimed to have lost the original landing footage and audio, but this is beyond parody now.

Of course, modern engineers would love to pour over the tech used to propel things in a total vacuum.
Click to expand...
Propulsion in a vacuum is eminently possible as Newton's third law is well established and used as a basic mechanical principle throughout engineering.
 
Mad as Fish said:
Propulsion in a vacuum is eminently possible as Newton's third law is well established and used as a basic mechanical principle throughout engineering.
Click to expand...
In the case of a vacuum, propulsion only works with ground contact, ie, friction/traction. The 3rd law does not apply to engines in space, where no opposing force exists to push against. But more specifically, I was interested in the Moon Buggies system of fuel, transmission and heat/exhaust exchange, given the temps reaching higher than boiling point in the Sun. How was the moon buggy cooled? Did NASA beat Musk to the lithium ion battery? We'll never know
 
Last edited:
PlunkettsGhost said:
In the case of a vacuum, propulsion only works with ground contact, ie, friction/traction. The 3rd law does not apply to engines in space, where no opposing force exists to push against. But more specifically, I was interested in the Moon Buggies system of fuel, transmission and heat/exhaust exchange, given the temps reaching higher than boiling point in the Sun. How was the moon buggy cooled? Did NASA beat Musk to the lithium ion battery? We'll never know
Click to expand...
My physics is a little rusty but it is the bulk of the motor itself which is the opposing force.
As rocket fuel burns, it expands in every direction. However, it cannot expand as much when confined in the combustion chamber, so it pushes against it before shooting out of the back, producing motion.
 
Mad as Fish said:
it pushes against it before shooting out of the back, producing motion.
Click to expand...
For propulsion you need to create what's called a pressure differential. Propulsion is more complex than just pushing something out in a given direction. There needs to be an actual change in pressure that produces the opposing forces. This can't happen in a vacuum, and the vastness of a vacuum in space will cause any ejected material to instantly lose directional force by the action of equilibration which pulls the energetic particles in all directions, instantaneously . Even if equilibration doesn't happen, you still can't create the necessary pressure differences
 
PlunkettsGhost said:
In the case of a vacuum, propulsion only works with ground contact, ie, friction/traction. The 3rd law does not apply to engines in space, where no opposing force exists to push against. But more specifically, I was interested in the Moon Buggies system of fuel, transmission and heat/exhaust exchange, given the temps reaching higher than boiling point in the Sun. How was the moon buggy cooled? Did NASA beat Musk to the lithium ion battery? We'll never know
Click to expand...
No, If a shotgun is fired in space by remote control the shot flies forward and the gun jumps backward and will keep going back as there is no air resistance. This is the principle of rocket propulsion.

My greatest point that it was a fake is that on Apollo 14 and 17 the ascent module rose up with no exhaust plume and no flame at all. It was a hypergolic rocket and that is impossible irrespective of where it happens.
 
PlunkettsGhost said:
For propulsion you need to create what's called a pressure differential. Propulsion is more complex than just pushing something out in a given direction. There needs to be an actual change in pressure that produces the opposing forces. This can't happen in a vacuum, and the vastness of a vacuum in space will cause any ejected material to instantly lose directional force by the action of equilibration which pulls the energetic particles in all directions, instantaneously . Even if equilibration doesn't happen, you still can't create the necessary pressure differences
Click to expand...
This is a very common mistake. Not only is there propulsion in a vacuum but once set moving the object keeps moving for ever. There is no air resistance or gravity to pull it to earth.
 
valamhic said:
No, If a shotgun is fired in space by remote control the shot flies forward and the gun jumps backward and will keep going back as there is no air resistance. This is the principle of rocket propulsion.
Click to expand...
No. The shotgun will not go off in space, due to the lack of oxygen. No combustion. But even if it could, the barrel creates a pressured container for the propulsion to at least begin. This is not the case with ship rockets. They eject their energy right into the vacuum
 
A shotgun will certainly fire in a vacuum but maybe not a musket
 
valamhic said:
Here is the best one

you tube rocket in a vacuum - Search Videos

Watch videos instantly on Bing—enjoy direct playback, discover related clips, and dive into trending content all in one place.
www.bing.com www.bing.com
Click to expand...
The gaseous ejection from the rocket fills the small vacuum chamber, thereby negating the vacuum. This is a video about repressurization. Note how the rocket fails to move until the smoke begins to fill the chamber, thereby reintroducing the possibility of creating the necessary pressure differential . Try this experiment in a much bigger vacuum chamber. You will get no propulsion.

Rocket propellant contains it's own oxidizer, for combustion. You will not get propulsion however in a larger vacuum chamber, as you need the pressure differential to create the necessary forces for propulsion. The rocket will not move in a room sized chamber.
 
Last edited:
Declan said:
A shotgun will certainly fire in a vacuum but maybe not a musket
Click to expand...
Does shotgun powder contain an oxidizer? If not, you get no combustion in a vacuum. If oxidizer is present , you will get a shot off, but only because the gun chamber contains the pressure. You absolutely need a pressurized environment to generate propulsion
 
Last edited:
It all happens inside the sealed cartridge, same as a much larger artillery shell
 
Declan said:
It all happens inside the sealed cartridge, same as a much larger artillery shell
Click to expand...
So, when the primer is hit, the pressure is all inside the cartridge, nothing is compromised?
Fair enough, but this not how space rockets would work. They are attempting to push against a total vacuum
 
Declan said:
A shotgun will certainly fire in a vacuum but maybe not a musket
Click to expand...
Both old black powder and smokeless powder contain their own oxidiser. They do not depend on
air oxygen. So it will fire. It will also recoil which proves a rocket will work in a vacuum. You can test a
the principle by blowing up a balloon and letting it go. Say there is 5 pound pressure inside and the area of the hole is half a square inch, that is 2 and 1/2 pounds pressure on the opposite side of the hole and it moves the balloon away. The atmospheric air is just a hindrance. It produces drag. In a vacuum there is no drag.
 
PlunkettsGhost said:
Does shotgun powder contain an oxidizer? If not, you get no combustion in a vacuum. If oxidizer is present , you will get a shot off, but only because the gun chamber contains the pressure. You absolutely need a pressurized environment to generate propulsion
Click to expand...
Old black powder contained a mixture of Saltpetre as an oxidiser, charcoal as a fuel and Sulphur to aid ignition.
Modern powder contains a fuel usually cellulose which is oxidised by immersion in nitric acid.
 
PlunkettsGhost said:
So, when the primer is hit, the pressure is all inside the cartridge, nothing is compromised?
Fair enough, but this not how space rockets would work. They are attempting to push against a total vacuum
Click to expand...
Rockets nozzle exhaust will push against anything that gets in the way. If it is a wall it will push against it.
If it is air it will push against it too but the air pressure is on all sides. The push from the back is equal to the push from the front and cancel each other out. Whether in a vacuum or air, as the rocket burns, the pressure on the inside front is say 4000 pounds while the pressure on the rear nozzle opening is zero. That is 4000 lbs thrust forward.
 
This made me chuckle

IMG_0970.jpeg
 
Tiger said:
This made me chuckle

View attachment 3044
Click to expand...
Still no sign of anyone going to the moon. 54 years now. I can prove the footage was fake, I cannot prove they did not go except by circumstantial evidence. Not only that, but I predict no one will land on it by the end of this century. Not Chinese, Indian or Russian. So I will never be able to prove they went of did not go.

Why would they take back 350 kg of moon rock which no member of the public ever got to touch. Would 50
kg not do. Why is there no report on the content of the moon rocks, was there radiation in them?
 
A manned flyby is supposed to happen in 2024, in November I believe. Don't hold yeer breath.
 
David has been banned said:
A reply -

The amazing thing is that these "geniuses" are happy to accept that NASA staged a thousand-person conspiracy to show a real rocket and simulate the landing, but then used low-quality props?

Whatever about the argument(s) for the Moon landings being fake (which is basically all debunked rubbish from the clueless), flat Earth is a different ballpark, it's not even the same sport.

Consider this site, I would say that the majority, probably vast majority, of posters here are conspiracy theorists when it comes to (the magnificent achievement of) man on the Moon, but only Herm & Plonker are flat-earthers (at least openly).
Click to expand...

The prime resource is really https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/main.html followed by https://history.nasa.gov/afj/
 
Apparently earth has three moons now.

Three Moons.png
 
Hermit said:
Jarry, do you have a link to the study of the astronauts' shit that they rolled up and packed in bags for observation back on earth?

View attachment 3135
Click to expand...
Here's a broad history.

www.businessinsider.com

From peeing in a 'roll-on cuff' to pooping into a bag: A brief history of how astronauts have gone to the bathroom in space for 58 years

A variety of makeshift solutions have been sent into space, including bags, roll on cuffs, diapers, strappy toilet seats, and $19 million commodes.
www.businessinsider.com www.businessinsider.com

And more.

www.smithsonianmag.com

In the Museum: Toilet Training

In the Museum: Toilet Training
www.smithsonianmag.com www.smithsonianmag.com

Can you point me to the original Sun article?

EDIT: Found it.


Can you point me to evidence of The Sun's claim? Where is the NASA directive for this?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jarry said:
Here's a broad history.

www.businessinsider.com

From peeing in a 'roll-on cuff' to pooping into a bag: A brief history of how astronauts have gone to the bathroom in space for 58 years

A variety of makeshift solutions have been sent into space, including bags, roll on cuffs, diapers, strappy toilet seats, and $19 million commodes.
www.businessinsider.com www.businessinsider.com

And more.

www.smithsonianmag.com

In the Museum: Toilet Training

In the Museum: Toilet Training
www.smithsonianmag.com www.smithsonianmag.com
Click to expand...
LOL. Space gets real crazy when you start thinking about how fucked up bodily functions would be. All that food and drink floating around your stomach like being on a rollercoaster 24/7. Not having "gravity" to help you push out a hard one. Not showering for a year. Micro pieces of shit and piss floating around.

Jarry said:
Can you point me to the original Sun article?
Click to expand...

space.png
 
Hermit said:
LOL. Space gets real crazy when you start thinking about how fucked up bodily functions would be. All that food and drink floating around your stomach like being on a rollercoaster 24/7. Not having "gravity" to help you push out a hard one. Not showering for a year. Micro pieces of shit and piss floating around.
Click to expand...
Absolutely.

www.vox.com

The floating turd mystery that still haunts NASA

Vox is a general interest news site for the 21st century. Its mission: to help everyone understand our complicated world, so that we can all help shape it. In text, video and audio, our reporters explain politics, policy, world affairs, technology, culture, science, the climate crisis, money...
www.vox.com www.vox.com

Can you point me to evidence of The Sun's claim? Where is the NASA directive for this?
 
Hermit said:
Jarry, do you have a link to the study of the astronauts' shit that they rolled up and packed in bags for observation back on earth?

View attachment 3135
Click to expand...
As part of my investigation, I investigtated Apollo 11. There is a white object under the lander.
I was told that was a human waste bag left behind.
 
Hermit said:
LOL. Space gets real crazy when you start thinking about how fucked up bodily functions would be. All that food and drink floating around your stomach like being on a rollercoaster 24/7. Not having "gravity" to help you push out a hard one. Not showering for a year. Micro pieces of shit and piss floating around.



View attachment 3136
Click to expand...
This a very important question. They say they wore nappies when walking on the moon.
 
David has been banned said:
A reply -

The amazing thing is that these "geniuses" are happy to accept that NASA staged a thousand-person conspiracy to show a real rocket and simulate the landing, but then used low-quality props?

Whatever about the argument(s) for the Moon landings being fake (which is basically all debunked rubbish from the clueless), flat Earth is a different ballpark, it's not even the same sport.

Consider this site, I would say that the majority, probably vast majority, of posters here are conspiracy theorists when it comes to (the magnificent achievement of) man on the Moon, but only Herm & Plonker are flat-earthers (at least openly).
Click to expand...
The flat earth is for a laugh. The moon landing thing is a very real question. I actually sat up all that night
with my siblings, I was only 10 years old. I believed it all. My father came down to tell us to go to bed and not be keeping him awake talking. We told him is was the moon Landing and he laughed saying it was just a film and films were not real. I accepted it was real all my life and I decided to investigate about 2017. I watched all the footage, David Percy's film and a funny thing happened on the was to the moon firm on BBC.

I used my excellent powers of perception and my excellent knowledge of the law and rules of evidence as a guidance. The cruncher was that the moon ascent l took off with no exhaust flame or smoke. It was a hypergolic 50/50 rocket. I proved the footage of the ascent was fake. That did not prove they did not land but it proved the two films of them leaving the moon was fake . A wore lifted the module up..

There were several other things too. All in all I put the odds of them landing once @ 20% and landing more than once at 2"%.
 
There is no doubt they went into low earth orbit. They are still doing that. Going beyond that is highly improbable.

They went unmanned to the moon last year to find out how severe radiation was. not one word was heard since. No man or woman will land on the moon in our life time.
 
If they could do it in the 60's when Val was still in college why haven't they been back since?
 
Myles O'Reilly said:
If they could do it in the 60's when Val was still in college why haven't they been back since?
Click to expand...
Because it was extremely expensive at the time and the American public did not want to continue to spend the money.

www.theatlantic.com

Moondoggle: The Forgotten Opposition to the Apollo Program

For most of our lunar adventure, a majority of Americans did not support going to the moon. On the 50th anniversary of JFK’s “We choose to go the moon” speech, we excavate this forgotten opposition.
www.theatlantic.com www.theatlantic.com

The current effort to land there is being done at a fraction of the cost but has also taken decades just to get to the point of sending an unmanned spacecraft back there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest Threads

Popular Threads

Back
Top Bottom