To the moon, Alice! - Page 3

innerSpaceman · 08-28-2008, 01:08 PM

First off, I don't give serious contemplation to the idea that our government blew up the Towers. I just find several things about the collapse visually nconsistent with expert explanations. That doesn't mean the experts aren't right, or that I don't believe them. Just that it's one of those oddities (and there are many) where things don't appear as perhaps they should if what's happening is in fact what's happening.

Gemini Cricket · 08-28-2008, 02:05 PM

GD, that is exciting.

Alex · 08-28-2008, 08:39 PM

First, people generally overestimate how powerful those thrusters were. Considerably less power is needed to reach orbit from the moon than from the earth (notice how the lander essentially just self launched back up into orbit rather than requiring a giant-ass three-stage rocket with hundreds of thousands of pounds of fuel).

Second, this is particularly true for the landing. You don't need to apply full thrust at the moment of impact and the Apollo astronauts weren't, they used maximum thrust at deorbit and a much smaller thrust at landing. By the time they landed they only had about 3,000 pounds of thrust going, which works out to just 1.5 pounds per square inch. Which is not much at all.

Third, dust was displaced by the landing and take off, and can be seen in the pictures and videos (and also there is more in the lift off than in the landing, just as you'd expect since more thrust is used at the moment of lift off then at landing). It just isn't as much as much as most people expect. This is both because the thrust power isn't as much as people expect and also because in the absence of an atmosphere the only dust displaced will the dust directly hit by the thrust exhaust, there will be no secondary wind as on earth. And finally, there simply isn't much dust to be blown around; scientists weren't sure how deep the moon dust would be, turns out it is only a couple inches.

Alex · 08-28-2008, 08:47 PM

Thanks Steph, I was just coming back to add that after forgetting.

Here's similar information from Michael Shermer (reprinted illegally, I'm sure).

Alex · 08-28-2008, 09:16 PM

Also, I watched the Mythbusters episode and am generally pleased with it.

However, while I agree with the outcome of their slowed-video experiments I thought they did a horrible job of explaining it and the interpretation of the results. I think this is primarily because they didn't have time for everything they crammed into the show.

Also, I wish they had acknowledged that while the reflector proves there is something man made on the moon it doesn't necessarily prove that humans have been on the moon (and in fact most of the hoaxers say that the reflectors were put there by the unmanned satellites they admit did orbit the moon).

RStar · 08-29-2008, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Will you take a dime into outer space for me?

A dime of what? Wouldn't that be intergalactic smuggling??

I enjoyed the show as well.

But I've got one stupid question. I've seen some pretty detailed pictures of the moon. Why isn't it possible to just take a picture of the lunar lander to or Apollo 15 landing site showing the things left behind to prove we landed there? Or would people just think those phtos were faked as well? Or is it that the angle is never right to get it?

Moonliner · 08-29-2008, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RStar

Why isn't it possible to just take a picture of the lunar lander to or Apollo 15 landing site showing the things left behind to prove we landed there?

You mean like this?

RStar · 08-29-2008, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

From Earth? Because those things are small and we're far away.

How small? The biggest things left behind by the Apollo missions were abour 20 feet wide. When we point Hubble at the moon it has a resolution of about 100 feet per pixel.

Europe's SMART-1 satellite took pictures from orbit around the moon and I think it never had a resolution better than 50ft per pixel or so.

Keep in mind that all those really high resolution photographs in Google Earth are taken from airplanes only a half dozen miles away at most.

That's what I thought, but I was thinking that if Hubble can take pictures of things light years away, why not a twenty foot size item on the moon? But what I forgot is that the things Hubble is taking pictures of light years away are huge galaxys; and they are emitting their own light.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moonliner

You mean like this?

Cool! Thanks! But the problem with those pictures are 1) that they are only spots, and 2) what's the proof that they are the Apollo 15 landing site? It's good enough for me (not that I ever doubted we landed, of course), but the skeptics may not be convenced.

Moonliner · 08-29-2008, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RStar

Cool! Thanks! But the problem with those pictures are 1) that they are only spots, and 2) what's the proof that they are the Apollo 15 landing site? It's good enough for me (not that I ever doubted we landed, of course), but the skeptics may not be convenced.

The skeptics are not looking for truth. They have a separate agenda.

Perhaps they just like to question stuff
Perhaps they don't like the US
Perhaps they just like to piss people off by arguing absurd points.

Whatever it is, they will never be convinced by something as trivial as facts.

Alex · 08-29-2008, 07:14 AM

From Earth? Because those things are small and we're far away.

How small? The biggest things left behind by the Apollo missions were abour 20 feet wide. When we point Hubble at the moon it has a resolution of about 100 feet per pixel.

Europe's SMART-1 satellite took pictures from orbit around the moon and I think it never had a resolution better than 50ft per pixel or so.

Keep in mind that all those really high resolution photographs in Google Earth are taken from airplanes only a half dozen miles away at most.

08-28-2008, 01:08 PM	#1
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	First off, I don't give serious contemplation to the idea that our government blew up the Towers. I just find several things about the collapse visually nconsistent with expert explanations. That doesn't mean the experts aren't right, or that I don't believe them. Just that it's one of those oddities (and there are many) where things don't appear as perhaps they should if what's happening is in fact what's happening.
	Submit to Quotes

08-28-2008, 02:05 PM	#2
Gemini Cricket ... Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,244	GD, that is exciting.
	Submit to Quotes

08-28-2008, 08:39 PM	#3
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	First, people generally overestimate how powerful those thrusters were. Considerably less power is needed to reach orbit from the moon than from the earth (notice how the lander essentially just self launched back up into orbit rather than requiring a giant-ass three-stage rocket with hundreds of thousands of pounds of fuel). Second, this is particularly true for the landing. You don't need to apply full thrust at the moment of impact and the Apollo astronauts weren't, they used maximum thrust at deorbit and a much smaller thrust at landing. By the time they landed they only had about 3,000 pounds of thrust going, which works out to just 1.5 pounds per square inch. Which is not much at all. Third, dust was displaced by the landing and take off, and can be seen in the pictures and videos (and also there is more in the lift off than in the landing, just as you'd expect since more thrust is used at the moment of lift off then at landing). It just isn't as much as much as most people expect. This is both because the thrust power isn't as much as people expect and also because in the absence of an atmosphere the only dust displaced will the dust directly hit by the thrust exhaust, there will be no secondary wind as on earth. And finally, there simply isn't much dust to be blown around; scientists weren't sure how deep the moon dust would be, turns out it is only a couple inches.
	Submit to Quotes

08-28-2008, 08:47 PM	#4
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Thanks Steph, I was just coming back to add that after forgetting. Here's similar information from Michael Shermer (reprinted illegally, I'm sure).
	Submit to Quotes

08-28-2008, 09:16 PM	#5
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Also, I watched the Mythbusters episode and am generally pleased with it. However, while I agree with the outcome of their slowed-video experiments I thought they did a horrible job of explaining it and the interpretation of the results. I think this is primarily because they didn't have time for everything they crammed into the show. Also, I wish they had acknowledged that while the reflector proves there is something man made on the moon it doesn't necessarily prove that humans have been on the moon (and in fact most of the hoaxers say that the reflectors were put there by the unmanned satellites they admit did orbit the moon).
	Submit to Quotes

08-29-2008, 07:14 AM	#10
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	From Earth? Because those things are small and we're far away. How small? The biggest things left behind by the Apollo missions were abour 20 feet wide. When we point Hubble at the moon it has a resolution of about 100 feet per pixel. Europe's SMART-1 satellite took pictures from orbit around the moon and I think it never had a resolution better than 50ft per pixel or so. Keep in mind that all those really high resolution photographs in Google Earth are taken from airplanes only a half dozen miles away at most.
	Submit to Quotes