Steve the Chemist* has a new video. The Apollo Crater Caper https://www.brighteon.com/2a541f9a-7f7b-4970-8401-e0fd31acafad It's pretty much a reiteration of points made in other studies but at the 52:50 time mark there is a lot of footage of what rocket engines would really do to the surface where they were landing. Here's some of the older stuff. Science proves that NASA faked the moon landings - Moon landing Hoax MoonFaker: No Crater. PART 1 MoonFaker: No Crater. PART 2 MoonFaker: No Crater. PART 3 MoonFaker: No Crater. PART 4 * https://www.brighteon.com/channels/stevedachemist
Clown fodder. Once again this serial forum spammer diverts from slam-dunk proof of a lunar landing in favor of this idiotic claim. NASA actually took images under the lunar lander and Armstrong commented on this. But still "truthers" persist with this ludicrous junk. To put that in context, it suggests that NASA deliberately failed to dig out a crater, after being dumb enough to highlight the lack of one. MEH!
At about the 42:55 mark in the video Steve the Chemist addresses the issue of why nasa did not dig a crater under the LEM. The Apollo Crater Caper https://rumble.com/v25d2ee-the-apollo-crater-caper.html
An imbecile "addresses" a moronic strawman. This clown talks about the descent stage rocket with 11,000 square inches of engine bell and 3,000lbs of thrust moving 60lb boulders around. There is a very real reason why a chemist has no business talking about physics. In this case, gullible fools eagerly suck up his stupid batshit.
Correction above, 11,000 square inches should be just under 3000 square inches. It equates to about 1 psi at the exit of the engine bell.
Are you saying a 10,000lb thrust rocket engine wouldn't be able to move a 60lb boulder around? (10lb on the moon)
Wow another stupid strawman and moving goalposts - 60lb on the Moon. Did you read my post? The engine bell has an exit pressure at landing of one psi, not exit pressure of the nozzle but the large bell connected to it. I dare you to be a hero for once and answer some simple questions: 1. The engine bell is 5ft across, from which the exhaust escapes. Does this equate to just under 3,000 square inches of area? 2. The lunar mass of the LM was around 6,000lbs before descent propellant depletion - do you agree with this? 3. What do you think the psi was at the exit point of the engine bell?
Makes a lot of sense! Thunders means someone from outside is knocking on the glass dome, probably UFO. I see a great future for glaziers.
MOON HOAX: DEBUNKED!: 8.11 How come there’s no blast crater under the LM’s engine? (moonhoaxdebunked.com) Another daft mistake.
Nobody moved any goal posts, the 60lbs -> 10lbs was taken directly from the video. I am not disagreeing with your numbers - at full throttle the psi would be around 3 psi - and I realize that doesn't sound like much - but there is a lot more to the picture. The problem is that you want to take a dynamic process and change it to a static one - and then you want to make the two processes equivalent.
Unlike you, I try not to watch every second of this batshit. So the answer then is yes, the engine would "move" a 10lb boulder at full throttle, depending on adhesion/friction of the boulder. But so what! Hogwash, I want to take the power of the engine at landing - 1psi - and suggest that it would NOT move the compacted surface just below the layers of dust above! Further, since NASA have supposedly pulled this massive hoax off with every detail fooling the world's finest scientists etc. (But not the low hanging fruit!), then it seems somewhat moronic to talk about it as soon as they land and take photographs of it on every mission.
I often wonder what kind of person does the kind of crap that you routinely do. It is difficult to imagine since your behaviour is quite frankly ridiculous. Does this idiotic arguing amuse you? Do you get a kick out of this pathetic activity? Quite clearly, the LM was fuel depleted on the descent stage and pushing 1psi at the bell exit. Quite clearly the bell exit was never that close to the ground. Quite clearly, exhaust gasses exiting the bell rapidly disperse at 90 degrees in a vacuum. Quite clearly this renders the power of the exhaust at significantly lower than 1psi when it reaches the surface. Quite clearly billions of years of bone dry, constant solar radiation will harden the surface! Quite clearly fine fragments of dust settled over time above this compacted layer. Quite clearly there are striations in what is clearly a hard surface. It is utterly moronic to suggest NASA would fail to put a blast crater in if it was "needed" whilst being idiotic enough to point out its absence and then take numerous images of it not being there!
Since you wont answer the question, I'll answer it for you. 1 sq ft = 144 sq inches 3 psi x 144 = 432 lbs An average human has a frontal area of about 5.5 sq ft so 5.5 x 432 lbs = 2,376 lbs of force That is enough force to send a person flying off into the distance. It would be like getting hit by a truck. If you want to make it 1 psi - that would still make it 2,376/3 = 792 lbs of force. You would still go flying.
Amazing, so had there been any humans underneath the rocket they would have been sent "flying". Thank heavens there weren't. Now back to reality, what would the 1psi to do to a human being if he was up against a flat surface!? It would put equivalent 4g of pressure on them. A whole lot of irrelevant bullshit. The surface itself, no matter how much area, would be subject to considerably less force per cubic inch than the 1psi at engine bell exit. The plume spreads out on exit, 90 degrees. Show your "awesome math" again and work out what the psi is from say 5ft away!
Since you like to play with numbers - why don't you tell me what Ve is for the Apollo lander? (Ve = exhaust gas velocity)
Irrelevant. The exit force relates directly to the thrust. The thrust is rated at 10,000lbs and throttleable. So the exit force will be whatever the engine is throttled to. Neither of us have the slightest clue what you are doing! The exit force at engine bell is 1psi. Two feet away from the bell and the plume circumference is going to be around 3ft wider - 8ft. That's 7,200 square inches and we are at 0.41 psi. THAT is the closest the engine bell gets to the surface. You've lost this stupid argument, kindly do what you always do, logoff for a few months and come back to troll again another time!
It is not irrelevant. What would you estimate the Ve (exhaust gas velocity) of the Apollo lander to be?
It is totally irrelevant - at NO POINT does the bell come in contact with the surface and the mass being ejected will be expanding. For this section of the rocket, F=ma will work just fine. Whatever the speed of the exhaust (spec sheet suggests it is 10,000ft per second - but that is max throttle) 6ft away from the lander the mass being ejected will be proportional and vastly reduced from the 1psi at the bell. I noticed you ignored these: "Now back to reality, what would the 1psi to do to a human being if he was up against a flat surface!? It would put equivalent 4g of pressure on them. A whole lot of irrelevant bullshit. The surface itself, no matter how much area, would be subject to considerably less force per cubic inch than the 1psi at engine bell exit. The plume spreads out on exit, 90 degrees. Show your "awesome math" again and work out what the psi is from say 5ft away!" "Two feet away from the bell and the plume circumference is going to be around 3ft wider - 8ft. That's 7,200 square inches and we are at 0.41 psi. THAT is the closest the engine bell gets to the surface." (This is actually underestimated - plume is 4ft wider.) But lets get real once more, during the descent, at a natural hover height of 6ft - the surface area of the plume is now 32,685.13 inches. I'm sure your math is more than adequate to understand we are now pushing less than 0.1psi. You lose, every clueless HB who has ever argued this bullshit has lost. I don't even know what idiotic point you are trying to make. The pressure being pushed out is never going to strike the surface with any more than 0.3psi (2ft away) and decreases accordingly with distance.
Don't you think a 10,000 ft per second hot exhaust gas hitting the surface of the moon and then rapidly expanding would blow a little dust around and make some streaks on the moon's surface?
Here's some more circumstantial evidence of fakery. So...the Low Rez and video from the move look about the same as that from the 60s. What!!!??? https://www.reddit.com/r/moonhoax/comments/z3o118/sothe_low_rez_and_video_from_the_move_look_about/ (excerpt) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The LRO operates at an altitude of 50km and returned images of resolution 0.5 metres/pixel. The privately owned GeoEye-1 satellite has perfectly resolved cars and even individual people at 0.5 m/pixel, in color, through an atmosphere, and from an altitude 14 times higher up than the LRO. If NASA had installed a similar camera we would be seeing a resolution of 3 cm/pixel and this would allow us to see the hardware in great detail – assuming that it’s there. We would also be able to see the landscape in great detail and compare it to the Hasselblad images. Since the landscape had never been officially photographed at that resolution prior to the Apollo missions, a match between the two sets of images would provide a good test of Apollo’s authenticity. Cant do that or people would see the fakery. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I found that here. https://www.reddit.com/r/moonhoax/
