To The Moon

PlunkettsGhost

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2023
Messages
3,932
Reaction score
3,770
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.
 

Mad as Fish

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2023
Messages
4,260
Reaction score
5,839
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.
Propulsion in a vacuum is eminently possible as Newton's third law is well established and used as a basic mechanical principle throughout engineering.
 

PlunkettsGhost

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2023
Messages
3,932
Reaction score
3,770
Propulsion in a vacuum is eminently possible as Newton's third law is well established and used as a basic mechanical principle throughout engineering.
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:

Mad as Fish

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2023
Messages
4,260
Reaction score
5,839
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
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.
 

PlunkettsGhost

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2023
Messages
3,932
Reaction score
3,770
it pushes against it before shooting out of the back, producing motion.
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
 

valamhic

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2022
Messages
1,828
Reaction score
810
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
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.
 

valamhic

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2022
Messages
1,828
Reaction score
810
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
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.
 

PlunkettsGhost

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2023
Messages
3,932
Reaction score
3,770
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.
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
 

Declan

Administrator
Staff member
New
Joined
Sep 11, 2021
Messages
8,963
Reaction score
6,406
A shotgun will certainly fire in a vacuum but maybe not a musket
 

PlunkettsGhost

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2023
Messages
3,932
Reaction score
3,770
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:

PlunkettsGhost

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2023
Messages
3,932
Reaction score
3,770
A shotgun will certainly fire in a vacuum but maybe not a musket
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:

PlunkettsGhost

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2023
Messages
3,932
Reaction score
3,770
It all happens inside the sealed cartridge, same as a much larger artillery shell
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
 

valamhic

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2022
Messages
1,828
Reaction score
810
A shotgun will certainly fire in a vacuum but maybe not a musket
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.
 

valamhic

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2022
Messages
1,828
Reaction score
810
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
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.
 

valamhic

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2022
Messages
1,828
Reaction score
810
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
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.
 

Tiger

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2023
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
2,387
This made me chuckle

IMG_0970.jpeg
 

valamhic

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2022
Messages
1,828
Reaction score
810
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?
 

Declan

Administrator
Staff member
New
Joined
Sep 11, 2021
Messages
8,963
Reaction score
6,406
A manned flyby is supposed to happen in 2024, in November I believe. Don't hold yeer breath.
 
K

Kangal

Guest
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).

The prime resource is really https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/main.html followed by https://history.nasa.gov/afj/
 
K

Kangal

Guest
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
Here's a broad history.


And more.


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:

Hermit

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2023
Messages
951
Reaction score
822
Here's a broad history.


And more.

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.

Can you point me to the original Sun article?

space.png
 
K

Kangal

Guest
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.
Absolutely.


Can you point me to evidence of The Sun's claim? Where is the NASA directive for this?
 

valamhic

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2022
Messages
1,828
Reaction score
810
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
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.
 

valamhic

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2022
Messages
1,828
Reaction score
810
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
This a very important question. They say they wore nappies when walking on the moon.
 

valamhic

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2022
Messages
1,828
Reaction score
810
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).
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"%.
 

valamhic

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2022
Messages
1,828
Reaction score
810
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.
 

Myles O'Reilly

Well-known member
New
Joined
Feb 3, 2022
Messages
7,063
Reaction score
5,449
If they could do it in the 60's when Val was still in college why haven't they been back since?
 
K

Kangal

Guest
If they could do it in the 60's when Val was still in college why haven't they been back since?
Because it was extremely expensive at the time and the American public did not want to continue to spend the money.


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.
 

Hermit

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2023
Messages
951
Reaction score
822
Can you point me to evidence of The Sun's claim? Where is the NASA directive for this?
Go ask The Sun. If you think they fabricated the whole article then go report it to NASA or something.
 

valamhic

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2022
Messages
1,828
Reaction score
810
If they could do it in the 60's when Val was still in college why haven't they been back since?
This is a key observation, the moon landings were more important in human history than the discovery of America or Australia. They would have been discovered by someone as humans were there before white men. In all those cases men returned within 50 years. Not only that, but there is no record on any living thing, human or animal ever going beyond LEO. They cannot ever go up half way there and come back.

I believe that in the year 2123, these conversations will still be live. My father was right , it was all a movie.
 

Latest Threads

Popular Threads

Top Bottom