Guess what shrinks when it gets cold and then you shake it around a little? The Moon. We're talking about the Moon Our Moon is getting cooler, causing it to shrink. Now, research published in Nature Geoscience on Monday suggests that shrinkage is leading to a whole lot of shaking going on, with a little help from Earth too. A team of geologists believe these cliff-like features are evidence of lunar tectonic activity. They analyzed seismic …
For 50 years it has also provided no useful data about how to go to the moon.
It does however feature indestructible nylon flags, fantasy timescales, rockets with inadequate thrust that 'did the job' and were then abandoned and a moon covered in dust free boulders, contrary to the laws of physics.
@MrReal
What a curious name to pick given your delusional posts about the moon landings.
Why are you so quick to try and deny the achievement? Does it feel good to rubbish the years of hard work, and the lives that were sacrificed? Does it inflate your ego to believe that man wasn't able to go to the moon?
Do you really believe that America managed to perpetrate such an elaborate hoax against the rest of the world, and keep it a secret to the present day?
You are a fuckwit of the first order, you really are.
Do you really believe that America managed to perpetrate such an elaborate hoax against the rest of the world, and keep it a secret to the present day?
A successful hoax on that scale would probably be as difficult to accomplish as an actual moon landing, though in a different way.
(PS do not feed the troll)
A successful hoax on that scale would probably be as difficult to accomplish as an actual moon landing
I think it would be far more difficult, because they still would have to get to the Moon to place things like the retroreflective mirrors that anyone can verify are present. You'd have to not only land something on the Moon, but have some sort of robotic arm to place the retroreflective mirror into position. You have to place rover, flag and other stuff. With 50 year old technology it would be pretty hard doing all that in an automated fashion.
Not to mention that even if the US government did this, they would have had to have assumed it would be a short term thing that would be proven false within a decade once the Russians landed there. If the Russians even suspected there was a .01% chance the US didn't go, they would have made sure to land a probe at the Apollo 11 site and prove that they didn't, to give the US a big black eye in the rest of the world.
"things like the retroreflective mirrors that anyone can verify are present."
Laser ranging of the moon started in 1962: 7 years prior to Apollo 11.
The 'proof' for the mirrors is finding a brighter spot on the moon and declaring it to be one, all NASA had to do was to scan 7 years of laser ranging data to find a brighter spot and decide to 'land' there.
Maths and physics also shreds your 'proof'. The laser 'dot' is around 1km diameter by the time it hits the moon. The mirror you speak of is 0.45m x 0.45m in size. The lunar albedo is around 12%.
So lets assume your mirror is perfect and reflects 100% of the photons. 0.45^2 = 0.2025m2.
Area of a 1km disc = Pi x 500^2 = 785398m2, so 0.2025 / 785398 = 0.0000258%
Your mirror changes an albedo of 0.12 to 1.0, or 88% increase of brightness of 0.0000258% of the dot = 0.0000227% increase in brightness between 'before mirror' to 'after mirror'.
Have you got readings accurate to 0.000001% reflectivity before and after Apollo 11 for that spot? Even NASA doesn't have that. Therefore your proof is based on something we cannot even measure.
6 thumbs down for maths.
Wow, so you are anti-maths now. That would explain a lot.
Well, when you find the person who forgot to cover the rocks in dust for the photos let me know, the dust free rocks like Shadow Rock are conclusive proof that the photos were taken on earth, even more so than the bizarre pool of light lighting of Apollo 11 when the sun decided it would rather be a spot lamp in the MGM Borehamwood sound stage.
Dust free rocks = weathering = earth based photos.
Pool of light = spot lamp = studio.
Ok, you can start thumbing down now for daring to point out the giant holes in your belief systems like the good sheep that you are.
Wow, so you are anti-maths now.
Trust me.. It's not us who are wrong. To quote one of our less-wise posters here, "Ignorance is fine, as long as you keep it to yourself."
Watch some TV. Maybe Mythbuster's episode on trying to "fake" the landings like your weird lot claim.
(BTW, with a little thought (if you're capable of that much?) would show you a few ways that you can get "dust-free" rocks in an atmosphere-free environment - and you may also find you're wrong on whether or not said rocks actually were "dust free").
Mythbusters did a strawman argument that they couldn't fake it with miniature models.
They also visited a laser ranging station that showed a few photons arriving from a brighter spot on the lunar surface, proving nothing. There was no before/after measurement, they merely proved that some areas of the moon are brighter than others (which we can all see with our eyes) and that just like in 1962 they could get photons back from it.
Tell me how this proves that reflectors were put there.
Tell me what you disagree with in the maths.
As for the dust free rocks - you can't think of a mechanism to keep them clean so how do you expect me to? How does a particle of dust know it's a big rock and not the ground?
Unless each speck of dust is carefully piloted to the ground by micro-people there's only one possible explanation. With a little thought (if you're capable of that much?) you can see the dust must have been washed off and out of the pits and hollows of the upward surfaces of the rock and away: only possible on earth.
What happened is this: The people building the sets in the baking sun were so used to rocks being dust free on earth they overlooked that the lunar surface must be like a blanket covering of snow. It's a mistake, a big mistake and sits there large as life in the photos of Apollo 16 and 17, plain as day.
Tell me what you disagree with in the maths.
I'll put as much effort into that as you've put into seeing even just one way dust can be removed from (or not reach) a rock surface in an atmosphere-free environment.
For that matter, I haven't even seen any evidence of the alleged "dust-free rocks", but assuming you're right on the existence of the specific ones you refer to - well, I can think of a few methods which can make them free of dust. Got a link so I can see what it is of which you speak? I'd maybe be able to tell you with some specifics if I knew what you were actually referring to. If you're as capable of math as you imagine yourself to be, you surely should be able to come up with at least 3 methods by which the rock became or remained dust free.
Assuming it actually existed. Given your complaints elsewhere about the quality of the video, how can you be sure the dust was simply beyond the ability of the camera to capture it?
You've clearly not given any thought to this. Try again?
(PS, even after washing a rock on earth, it's still pretty difficult to find one that is truly "dust free" - it is actually easier for this to happen in space)
As to the Mythbusters episode - them at their worst was still better than anything I've seen from you on this topic. I don't watch much of their trash and only recall them doing stuff with life-sized things except maybe a re-creation of one of the photographs to show you can easily get multiple shadow directions with a number of objects strewn about a non-flat terrain from a singular light source (something anyone who has used a camera can quickly figure out)... Perhaps you can try again to debunk their debunking of your claims? Thought not.
"I haven't even seen any evidence of the alleged "dust-free rocks""
It's times like this that I realise people like you simply haven't looked at the photos that they defend, why is it that I'm more familiar with NASA's Apollo photos than you? Clearly you have little interest in the subject yet you still stand up to defend it - why?
They inspect giant boulders in Apollo 16 and 17, try the well known Shadow Rock from Apollo 16 for starters. There are lots of close up pictures, astronauts leaning stuff on them and even a video in which they singularly fail to notice it's not covered in dust like a new snowfall.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcJ8d_V35xU
Image of this nice clean rock:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shadow_Rock_AS16-106-17393HR.jpg
More are at NASA on their websites, easy to browse, find and study.
House rock: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIdJOWdqXYA
etc
If the rock just arrived there would be a crater or sliding trail and a lump of dust. There is none, instead Shadow Rock sits within the dust accumulation, like a car in the snow. Unlike a car in the snow however it is entirely clean on top, so much so that you can follow the geological features from top to bottom, and the astronaut leaning stuff on it also shows it is dust free.
Here I have laid out a logical argument that these rocks in the images would be covered in dust were they really left on the moon for millions of years.
Perhaps unlike the more emotional members on here you can take a logical, critical thinking approach if you have a rebuttal?
BTW My explanation of the dust free rocks is that they are rocks on earth. It's a simple, logical explanation that fits the facts, obeys the laws of physics and requires little effort to reproduce.
Ignore the dogman, the stories, the peer pressure: the rock and photo don't know about those: Look at only the dust and the rock.
A successful hoax on that scale would probably be as difficult to accomplish as an actual moon landing, though in a different way.
And of course there's that saying about if NASA had faked that, why haven't they faked any other significant achievements?
Anyway, we all know the moon is now a holographic projection made by Queen Victoria when she accidentally queefed in the original Moon's general direction and blew it out of orbit.
A successful hoax on that scale would probably be as difficult to accomplish as an actual moon landing, though in a different way.
Actually, I've seen an analysis of the hoax, and it determined it would have been significantly more difficult to fake the moon landing than to actually do it for real. Probably outright impossible to do. With the level of tech we have now, maybe we could do it (but it also would get exposed within the year, probably a month). But you have to consider the level of computer, etc tech we had then, and we simply didn't have the compute power and storage capacity for a hoax.
"more difficult to fake the moon landing than to actually do it for real. "
I see. You mean it would be more difficult to fake the photos, videos etc, that if they went there and just took the photos and videos etc?
Two problems:
1) Taking those Apollo 11 reels on that Hassleblad for real is not possible. The telltale is the lack of bracketing (no exposure meter), great focus with no viewfinder, lack of foggig of film NS claimed was subject to 'a few chest Xrays' of radiation. Lack of a single cold-cracked or heat melted film.
2) The article you read assumed that getting there was a non event and were only discussing the fake vs real photography etc. I.e. it failed to address the myriad of barriers to space flight, especially back then.
The analysis goes well beyond photos. There were issues of buffering the transmission data to simulate the lag times (there simply wasn't the storage capacity/capability to do it). Transmissions from the Apollo 11 mission were being received by multiple people, not just Mission Control, so there would have to be actual transmissions of some sort, not just Mission Control saying they got it.
But, as is the case for your typical Lunar Deny-er, you focus on merely ONE aspect that you could make reasonable sounding explanations, and thinking if you debunk one item out of 100, you think you're proving something.
But hey, delusionals gotta delude.
Buffer video and audio was easy in 1969 to delay, trivial in fact.
They recorded the video onto telemetry tape - so NASA is the source for our proof of video record and replay technology. So you just place the recorder away from the player and string the video tape around a bit to get the delay - you can also easily vary it as the mission proceeds, easy.
The same is true of the audio of course, hardly rocket science....
Now tell me why the rocks are clean.
Do you really believe that America managed to perpetrate such an elaborate hoax against the rest of the world, and keep it a secret to the present day?
Almost wish they were able.
Then there might be the possibility they were pulling another hoax, and they had in fact Not really voted a complete nincompoop to run their country....
"Do you really believe that America managed to perpetrate such an elaborate hoax against the rest of the world, and keep it a secret to the present day?"
Gulf of Tonkin.
Iraq WMDs
Libya
Syrian gas attacks
Russia election meddling.
BTW, the hoax wasn't that elaborate. Also my initial point stands: The apollo missions have appeared to teach us NOTHING about travelling to the moon.
If you disagree, point out some NASA tech. that is good for a moon trip, built in the past 50 years.
Ok downies, click away !
All I can see in your post are insults, you address none of the points I made.
Grissom was a life that was sacrificed. He didn't think it had a chance either, how do you know so much more than Gus Grissom?
As for achievements, why are you so welded to the ego of 1960s America?
America lied about Iraq, Libya and Syria and are lying about Venezuela, why do you idolize them?
They've been building the F35 since 1994 and it still doesn't work but you think they went to the moon, despite today not being able to get into orbit. That's fine, but please don't insult people who know more than you do - your beliefs are wrong, you have been misled, it's not my doing.
Perhaps you'd like to explain how rocks like Shadow Rock in Apollo 16 don't have any dust on them? There are large closeup photos, astronauts leaning against it, you can see the rock patterns and structure. It's buried in the dust, several inches by the look of it.
But no dust is on the rough surfaces , it's completely clean. WHY?
Grissom was a life that was sacrificed. He didn't think it had a chance either
If Grissom didn't believe it was possible to get the Moon, why the hell was he taking part in a space program with that very purpose?
You've stated a couple of times that he didn't believe it was possible. I know the guy was a bit of a maverick, but you can at least come up with some evidence that he ever said such things. Given his actions (testing a prototype rocket designed specifically for going to the Moon), at extreme risk to his own life, rather suggest he did believe in the mission. And my quick search produced one quote from him saying that "if we die, we don't want it to delay the program" as he believed the exploration of space was too important.
As to your point about not being able to go to the Moon now, that's for two very simple reasons. You need a much bigger and more expensive rocket to get to the Moon with humans than for any other thing we use rockets for. Even in the horribly expensive world of space exploration, nobody develops and maintains a rocket and production line for something we don't do. Making bigger rockets is relatively easy (for a given value of easy) - you just need the budget. The only technology we don't currently have is a lunar lander - which is not a huge problem as we can now land rockets back on Earth - it's just a matter of budget and testing.
All the technical solutions for a lunar landing are known, but building a supply chain, design and testing regime for such a complex requirement is hugely expensive. Which is why the US spent such a ludicrous amount on Apollo first time round, and why they stopped doing it, because they hadn't found an ongoing use for that vast industrial machine they'd built. And that's why in the past it would have cost similar amounts of ludicrous cash to repeat the process. However now we have commercially built heavy lift rockets coming on stream, along with new spacecraft for trips to the ISS - which means the only difficult bit in a few years will be designing a lander. NASA's attempt at a huge rocket is of course meeting the same difficulties that Apollo did, with only a few launches expected, at the whim of government, and no long-term purpose in mind, SLS is going to end up being a hugely expensive white elephant that goes horribly over-budget and time - which can't distribute the design and testing costs over multiple launches and so gain economies of scale.
As the saying goes, "no bucks, no Buck Rogers."
"You need a much bigger and more expensive rocket to get to the Moon with humans than for any other thing we use rockets for"
Clearly you haven't watched Verner Von Braun's 1957 video about how to get to the moon. Why have I watched this - many times, yet you know nothing about it?
Are you not claiming to be the expert here, over me? Yet you know nothing of the plans to reach the moon. Weird.
You also seem to know nothing about 'Specific Impulse', the efficiency of rocket motors, which is presumably why you think the 1962 design F-1 engine was good enough for a moon mission. Do you have ANY idea how poor the F-1 design is? It's a pitiful design, made of thinwall brazed tubes which present combustion chamber pressure limitations, heat stress issues and huge pumping losses. Coupled with the inefficient straight through injectors on the injector plate and the open cycle design it represents an appallingly obsolete design even in 1969. Look at the engine Bezos pulled out if the ocean, it shows the dirty uneven burn. Why do you think it had such a long flame tail? That's because much of the fuel burned outside of the engine - not very useful for thrust was it?
You do realise the best rocket scientists in the west (Rocketdyne) spend the 5 years from 1962 to 1967 trying to get over a million lbs of thrust out of it? They failed, then Von Braun suddenly claimed to get 50% more power in 1969 than the collapsing thinwall tubes allowed?
There's a good, simple reason that NASA dumped the F-1 engine and went for the risker system on the Shuttle. If your ego allows you reflect on the fact that in 1969 NASA had the appalling F-1 engine while the Russians had the complete working NK-33, of which today the RD-180 copy is sold to NASA as the world'd most efficient rocket motor.
So are you claiming that none of the Saturn 5 missions were able to reach orbit or get to the moon?
So you deny all of the Apollo missions, including the flybys, not just the landings, is that right?
And you also deny that a Saturn 5 launched Skylab? Maybe you are claiming Skylab was a hoax as well?
What about the Apollo–Soyuz Test Project, was that a hoax perpetrated by both the Soviet Union and America on the rest of the world?
Or are all these "strawmen"?
"So you deny all of the Apollo missions, including the flybys, not just the landings, is that right?"
Ah I see, you are reframing me as a DENIER!!!
Da da DAH!!!!
You appear to have the cart before the horse, I'm not claiming some 1960s americans went to the moon, plays golf, drove around in buggies that defied the laws of physics and gravity: YOU are.
I'm a skeptic and am pointing out that there is no evidence that they went and much evidence that they didn't go. Their lack of knowledge of how to get there 50 years later might be a clue for you - Project Orion. Look at them go, the same funny conical capsule, parachutes, splashdowns - tell me how long haas that been going and how many billions in trying to solve a problem that NASA claims was solved in 1969?
If NASA had not destroyed the Apollo telemetry tapes and original Apollo 11 video tapes we could prove that the flight plan wasn't followed.
I have no idea why you bring skylab into this, the ability for the Saturn V to get a section of casing (skylab) into a decaying low earth orbit is not at issue here.
Do you even know anything about Saturn V or are you talking out of your behind?
Questions:
1. Was the F-1 a closed or open cycle motor?
2. How was the combustion chamber constructed? How was it cooled?
3. What was the rough maximum pressure of the F-1 combustion chamber
4. What type of injectors did it use?
5. When was the design first made?
6. What power did Rocketdyne (the wests best rocket scientists) rate it at?
You argue using a mix of ignorance, dogma and belief but you don't actually KNOW anything about either Saturn V or the Apollo missions do you ?
Are you accustomed from arguing from a position of ignorance or do you reserve that for NASA stories you remember on a blurred TV back in the 1960s?
I'm a skeptic and am pointing out that there is no evidence that they went and much evidence that they didn't go.
There is a large body of evidence that they went, it's just that you and others of your ilk count it all as false. By comparison, the "evidence" that they didn't go is based on conjecture and conspiracy theories.
Your faux scientific claims and insistence that you know more than anyone else are really quite pitiful.
"There is a large body of evidence that they went"
No there isn't, you think there is because you have never looked. Your ignorance of what NASA claimed to have done, photographed and the technology they used is almost as breathtaking as your stubborn fact free insistence that they went.
NASA only has NASA sourced photos and video, all with silly mistakes and errors. Someone mentioned mirrors - it was a good subject brought up by someone who knows more than you do, but you have so far mentioned no evidence at all.
Old faked photos and videos is not proof, bouncing lasers from bright spots is not proof, CGI tracks and flags from NSA's LRO is not evidence, non existent Japanese and Chinese photos are not evidence.
NASA's claims are faux scientific, you clearly have no idea of science or rocketry because if you did you'd be arguing at an academic level rather then the level of a small child.
If you want to believe the earth is flat that's fine, but why bring it up here?
You are probably too dumb to realise that the word Loony is derived from Lunar, meaning the moon. Effectively you are saying I'm talking about the moon.
Welcome to the discussion. Shame you don't know anything about Apollo.
"You are in fact a loony. No different than flat earthers."
Wrong, he *is* different from those mostly harmless fools. By denying reality, by pissing on the history, by attempting to give credence to lunatic fantasies of hoaxes he is aiding those politicians and priests who think of our offworld drive as "BuckRojjahs, skiffy, robots-and-ray-guns teenager stuff" and who whine and bellyache about spending money *here* instead of on the only real task Man has.
Lunatic fringe nutbars like MrFake can be collected, collated and brandished as weapons in the battle against funding offworld stuff. Yes, they are a minor, petty, ludicrous and easily dismissed tool, even in the hearings in the palaces of power they are little more than a humorous distraction at worst but they *do* distract, they *do* have a small impact. They do influence the mood.
Were the fruitcakes to assemble their tiny wits and try to see and cope with reality and historical fact, were they to grasp the Big Picture, were they to finally accept that Man could have been immortal and ubiquitous, they *might* have influenced their political betters into spending vast amounts of treasure on a "War On Space" instead of on inane sqabblings.
Some website suggested that there are funds of six or more hundreds of millions of dollars (or Euros, it matters little at this level of accuracy) pledged to rebuild a churcjh in France. With that kind of money we could have an orbital station at L1 and a research station on Farside.
With what the "War on Terror" cost" we could have rebuilt those countries, gien everyone in them a stake in the future, built orbital habitats, put a couple of cities on Mars and been well on our way to ram-mining Jupiter for volatiles.
Those are the easy, cheap things we could have done in the last fifty years. We could *also* have helped ourselves, made Earth better, done al hte good things we know we should be doing. We could have afforded *all* of those things. We still might be able to. Maybe.
But only if the loonies and the myopics and those who have never dreamed stop holding us back with their petty delusions.
We could have the stars.
All we need to do is reach out.
All MrReality-avoider need do is accept the Dream.
And vote only for politicians who put the stars at the very, very top of their priorities.
Last thoughts: the plutonium in the power-packs of little robots sent to Jupiter and Pluto can *never* harm the little bunnies, sending RTG's away is *green* and every single dollar spent by NASA/JPL/ESA/JAXA on offworld stuff is spent on Earth. Every dollar spent on the manned space effort benefits the inner cities, the poor and the rest of the good things because it all keeps the ecomony churning.
Space is green and space is good for the little shops that spring up around launch sites.
This post has been deleted by its author
You may be surprised to learn that I agree with most of the points in your post.
However your belief in Apollo causes you to insult me and denigrate my comments when in fact I am 100% correct and you are the one having been misled by NASA.
Put aside your beliefs for a moment and consider that the Apollo story has totally failed to advance manned space exploration one tiny bit. In fact Apollo is now the stock excuse for no country to even bother trying to get a man into space.
In your mind you THINK that by supporting Apollo you are somehow helping manned space exploration, and that by pointing out it was a fake I am somehow attacking it. In fact the opposite it true, if we are to get into space and not remain trapped inside the sun's particle belt for ever we NEED to start looking at reality, not fiction.
Project Orion - the REAL Apollo project, has put an enormous amount of R&D into the radiation problem, the same problem that Apollo 'proved' was a non-issue. While we are all children and pretend that serious problems like that do not exist we have ZERO chance of getting into space. The only way they can function is to pretend to be aiming for Mars, so now we have one lie on top of another. R&D has trouble functioning like that and NASA's manned moon program is no exception: 50 years after Apollo and they still have not only no clue about visiting the moon, not none of the equipment required either.
So please stop attacking the messenger, the Apollo stories are ridiculous fakes and each and every element can be shredded with minimal logic. From LRVs on unnecessary winches and with physics defying grip to dust free moon rocks and Buzz getting the correct exposure on every single image on a body that no man has even been to before - without even an exposure meter or vewfinder, to the lack of radiation fogging to the lack of power in the F-1 engines, the hopeless water tubes in the suits, the lack of quality and testing, the tiny timescales, for me it's barely credulous people take this stuff for reality, but if they do it takes then down a dead end and away from progress toward space exploration.
Much of the world has believed in Apollo for half a century and it has got them exactly nowhere. The Apollo lie has totally wrecked manned space flight, the cost of the lie was to halt all progress.
I was there.
I watched it happen.
I ... had nothing to do with *making* it happen, that was 400,000 other people.
Including a janitor in the VAB who was sked by a TV team what he did there. His reply still brings tears to my eyes:
"I'm part of the team that put a man on the Moon."
I would give anyhting I have to be given the chance to fly.
The sad thing is, MrFake, that scunners like you, the priests and pork-barrellers in Congress have killed the Dream of Stars and Man will now die on this planet. We had a window when the treasure, the skills, the motivation, the sheer *need* was there and we could have become an immortal, ubiquitous species. We lost it. We lost it all because of small-minded, terrified little nonces like you and greedy politicians, religious and not, with no vision, no grasp of The Big Picture.
We could have had the *stars*. We could have made this a human galaxy. Instead, Man will become extinct, no other life will ever leave this world and the Dream of Stars is forever dead.
So, thank you. Thank you very much. Your pettiness has doomed us all.
You were not there John.
Even if you watched the launch, you have NO IDEA where those rockets ended up. None.
Instead of engaging in any technical discussion you do the usual naive idiot act and attack the person who knows considerably more than you about the subject.
Clearly you haven't watched Verner Von Braun's 1957 video about how to get to the moon. Why have I watched this - many times, yet you know nothing about it?
I've no idea? Why have you watched it so many times? Will you elucidate, and tell me why you believe I'm wrong? Or is just a tease designed to suggest your intellectual superiority? And there was you whining a few posts above about personal attacks.
I've no idea if I have seen it or not. I've seen some of his TV stuff a long time ago. I thought he was the big rocket man, and it was others who suggested orbital rendevous, where you could use many smaller launches to get what you want and assemble it in earth orbit. That's surely the sensible approach to going to Mars.
That's assuming you have an actual point?
MrReal,
Thanks for confirming that you're a troll rather than a believer. Or maybe both troll and believer. Who knows / who cares?
When constructing an argument it is important to have some evidence - but you also need to say what you are using that evidence to prove. Otherwise you're doing the equivalent of saying, "go and read a book on physics and then come back to me" - i.e. being an arse.
So let me get this right, You claim one needs a single enormous rocket to reach the moon.
I reply by suggesting you watch the 1957 presentation by Werner Von Braun.
Instead of finding it in 2 minutes on Youtube and watching it you actually come back here and instead have a go at me for not typing up an executive summery for you to ignore??
Unbelievable. Another pro NASA troll who doesn't know why he supports them and refuses to look on youtube for a specific film that was given in response to his question.
I'm beginning to think Naive doesn't quite cover your condition.
"Why do you think it had such a long flame tail? That's because much of the fuel burned outside of the engine - not very useful for thrust was it?"
MrReal, you obviously know nothing about 'rocket science'. Burning raw fuel in the exhaust (ie "outside of the engine") is EXACTLY how reheat works (AKA 'afterburner'). Look at some clips of night-time B1 scrambles and you can see the diamond-shaped shock cones just behind the exhaust nozzle.
By far the biggest hurdle with the Apollo moon shots was not actually getting to the moon, i was getting away from earth. A lunar landing is, relatively speaking, piss-easy. Escaping Earths gravity-well is always going to be the real problem. Hence the MASSIVE flames coming out the back of the Saturn 1B / V / STS SRBs.
Reheat?
Please, stop making me laugh, you are so funny.
Reheat. Jeez, I think I've heard it all now.
Go LOOK at a jet on reheat. Look closely at the thrust diamonds and WHERE the fuel is burning. Are you seriously trying to tell us that the bright flame of the Saturn V/F-1 motor a full 100 metres behind the rocket is the reheat??
You do realise that nowhere on the ENTIRE internet does NASA mention 'reheat' on any rocket motor at all? Oh God, my sides.
What's your day job, a stand up comedian?
MrReal, I did not say the Saturn V uses reheat.
It doesn't.
I know that.
Nowhere have I said it does, so please stop putting word into my mouth and try to engage some common-sense and actually try to understand what I'm saying.
My point about reheat is a straight forward rebuttle of your argument that burning fuel "outside of the engine" is pointless; my mention of reheat is to show the ignorance of your argument. Reheat does indeed burn fuel "outside of the engine". The reheat system quite literally sprays raw fuel into the exhaust of the jet engine.
In other words . . "outside of the engine". (You'll notice the variable-camber 'petal leaf' arrangement on the exhaust nozzles of jet-fighter engines, for example, which is mounted on the extreme aft end of the engine and thus outside the combustion chamber).
Again, please bear in mind the exhaust nozzle is 'outside of the engine', to use your words.
Please understand that the term "reheat" is a straight-forward description of what such a system does; it reheats the exhaust.
Finally, you have said:
"You do realise that nowhere on the ENTIRE internet does NASA mention 'reheat' on any rocket motor at all? Oh God, my sides."
. . . well!
A few posts ago you implied the NASA website was full of lies, yet you now use that same 'website of lies' in an attempt to justify your deliberate misinterpretation of my post.
. . . has Nursey been forgetting your tablets again?
So I correctly claim that the fuel burning many metres behind the Saturn V - having been simply thrown out of the F-1 motor by it's appallingly inefficient straight injectors - is a waste...
...and you claim that I'm wrong because the F-1 didn't use reheat but some jet engines do.
I see, well thanks for clearing that up. The 1962 Rocketdyne Flamethrower team salutes you.
"Escaping Earths gravity-well is always going to be the real problem."
By a coincidence of chaotic collisions some 4.6 milliard years ago, humans just happen to live on the biggest rock in the Solar System. Everything, with the obvious exceptions of the gas giants and Sol herself, is easier to get away from than this place, and it'll be quite a while before those exceptions are going to be places we'd need to leave.
Once we escape from Earth, the universe is basically ours. Or it would have been had not no-nothing twerps ruined the Dream.
The last half of a century have shown us that getting away from the Earth is expensive and difficult and that no one really wants to bother doing it; no one, that is, apart from starry-eyed dreamers. Had Man evolved on Eros, as an impossible example, we could have built beanstalks in the era of Stonehenge but that's not practical on Earth.
Earth's a wonderful planet, she's given us ever so very much including the miracle of life itself but her being so damned big is annoying.
We need a StarDrive.
MrReal
"There's a good, simple reason that NASA dumped the F-1 engine and went for the risker (sic) system on the Shuttle."
1) The STS was never designed to escape Earths gravity well. The 3-stage Saturn V system was.
2) The STS was designed to have re-usable components. The Saturn V system wasn't.
Your arguments do not stand up to any reasonably defined level of scrutiny or intellectual integrity.
One might as well argue the Wright Flyer couldn't have worked because a 12 gasoline (petrol) engine couldn't possibly get a fully grown man and a shed full of canvas and wood into the air, or that the Tunguska blast was the result of a crashing alien spaceship, or that the Moon has a 'dark side'.
1) Skylab
2) Irrelevant, there were no cost savings from the Shuttle.
Your arguments do not stand up to any reasonably defined level of scrutiny or intellectual integrity. You may as well argue that NASA simply didn't want a super reliable launch motor that had been space proven and was now world famous as such.
MrReal
"1) Skylab"
What has Skylab to do with anything?
"2) Irrelevant, there were no cost savings from the Shuttle."
Cost-savings compared to what? One of your straw-man arguments. Reusable equipment wasn't about 'cost-savings', it was about cost-reductions. It was also about seeing what type of things COULD be reused. Remember the STS was the first of its kind, and each of the Orbiters were also being tested on a prototype basis every time they flew 'regular' missions.
Skylab. An example of a Saturn V lofting a large item in to LEO.
Perhaps you need to review your own question and then apply SKYLAB to it, since you were the one who claimed that SaturnV and the F-1 were not suitable for that type of task?
Hubble could have been launched in the same way as Skylab, which - lets face it - was the only notable thing to come out of the shuttle program.
You probably don't know that the Shuttle idea pre-dates Apollo.
Accoding to simplistic aerodynamics, big, woolly bees and humming birds can't fly because their sings are too small to produce sufficient lift. As the beasties don't know this,because no one ever teaches them Science, they just beat their tiny wings faster until the lift magically appears.
MrNutbar has the same limited understanding of Science and engineering, it would seem as a bee but in his case he doesn't flap hard enough to learn anything, he merely detracts from the human experience. He is a sad, little man and we should ignore him.
Meanwhile, the lost bits of the Apollo Saturn rockets *could* have been recycled but no one saw the need and it would have complicated life a lot. Re-using them would probably have also compromised flight safety hugely. Still, it could have been done had GreenPeace and the other tree-huggers been as vocal and had they controled as many votes in the Apollo Era as they did later.
The Tunguska explosion might have been an alien ship, we'll never know. It is very, very unlikely but aliens might holow-out comets and accidentally collide them with large rocks. Given sufficient numbers of space-faring aliens, it will happen somewhere, just as aeroplanes crashing does. What we need to do is wait until the next one lands and investigate it immediately with all of the resources and technologies of this era.
Not that having a big ice-ball explode overhead is anyything we should really be hoping for but it's the only way to be sure.
And the Moon *does* have a "dark side". As does the Earth and every other object in the Solar System. On Earth it is often called "Night-time" or some local equivalent and, in common with the dark sides of all the ohter detritus and debris falling around out there, it moves relative to the surface but not relative to the Sun.
Having a dark side is a natural consequence of the objects not being transparent and of them being rather close to a big, bright, shiny thing. I leave it as an exercise for the readership to guess what that is.
"Meanwhile, the lost bits of the Apollo Saturn rockets *could* have been recycled"
WRONG.
The main cost item was the F-1 engines. Under the over-cooked schedule (even well below the fantasy 1,500,000 lbs thrust) the combustion chamber tubes undergo a one-way thermal hardening event that is irreversible. Each F-1 motor was only good for a SINGLE launch.
The reason the F-1 motors made that exciting crackling sound was actually from the giant turbopumps that were needed to force the fuel through all those tiny tubes, the pumping losses were horrendous. It was literally the most inefficient motor of it's time and so ironic that people like you look up to it as an example of excellence.
NASA and Rocketdyne (better rocket designers that you) dumped it for that reason, please stop thinking you know better than them!
I thought that the moon was a solid ball of rock and that its magma and core had solidfied aeons ago. If that's the case, how can it be tectonically active?
Is the report suggesting that the opposite is, in fact, the case? That there are molten layers beneath the crust causing the crust to shift?
The moon does have a liquid core, but it's proportionally very tiny. The tectonics that is observed is driven by tidal stresses, not a heat driven plate tectonic mechanism. You need to set your time machine to about 1.2 billion years ago to watch the last sputters of lunar volcanoes, which would probably have been quite pretty at the new moon.
@MrReal
Stop reading conspiracy theory sites and go see what NASA have to say about it:
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/moonmars/features/lunar_core.html
Actually there is lots of independent evidence from painstaking science. I can't pretend to understand it all,. There are the theoretical calculations, in that we know how big the moon is, and how heavy it is, so we can deduce density and work out the likely pressures/temperatures in the core. But rather neatly we can also accurately measure the way the moon wobbles, because of the laser reflectors that have been placed on the moon by various landers, and then model different compositions of core - turns out that this line of evidence supports a small liquid core. Then there are data from the lunar seismometers, magnetometers on the moon and in orbit, observations of the way the moon responds to the earths gravity. This information is easy to find, Wikipedia and follow the references if you actually want to learn.
Lies! It's a conspiracy by the cheese manufacturers! They know that if the truth ever came out, that the Moon is just a giant camembert, that it would be a threat to their sales. Worse - if it can be proven that the core is still molten, then millions of people will be up there with loaves of bread like rats up a drainpipe.
Further evidence for this is that Elon Musk flew a giant cheese into space on the first test of the Dragon capsule. And yet the test of the first Crew Dragon and Falcon Heavy didn't. This is because he now knows of the inexaustible supply of Moon Cheese - and that's why he's planning to get to the Moon so quickly.
Wake up sheeple, before the billionaires eat your birthright!
Mathematical modelling is mathematical modelling, not evidence. My statement was that there was zero evidence.
You attempt to prove that there is evidence by citing NASA's fantasy fiction Apollo story, which makes your argument somewhat circular.
The laser reflectors are bunk (see my previous post where I do the maths), but yes I suppose measurements of wobble could be wrung out of the handful of photons that arrive from laser ranging experiments, whether they would be accurate enough for any conclusion is debatable.
Please don't cite Wikipedia, if I need the establishment view I just read from NASA's pages.
MrReal
"see my previous post where I do the maths"
First of all, you didn't do the maths, you copied it from a website. I'm not stupid.
Secondly, this maths has been roundly debunked as number-gibberish by numerous scientists and mathematicians over the years.
For example you state the diameter of the lasers beam when it hits a reflector would be very large: so what? As long as it hits the reflector it can be the diameter of the moon itself! (Don't fight basic physics, you'll lose!!)
You also state NASA doesn't have detectors sensitive enough to detect the tiny change in luminosity against the moons albedo. Nonsense. NASA can detect the slightest change in a stars luminosity when one of its planets passes in front of it, and have been doing so, for decades. Creating algorithms to detect the most minuscule change in values generated by a computer-interpretation of the electromagnetic energy (only a fraction of which is visible to the human eye BTW) is very common and has been for decades (for instance, the WOW signal).
Finally, you haven't the decency to respond to my previous posts and questions therein. THAT says everything about you we need to know.
"For example you state the diameter of the lasers beam when it hits a reflector would be very large: so what? As long as it hits the reflector it can be the diameter of the moon itself! (Don't fight basic physics, you'll lose!!)"
Oh dear, your logic circuits appear to be broken. You have failed to spot that the dot size is vital in determining the mirrors contribution to the overall amount of reflected light.
The laser outputs a certain number of photons per second and if you spread these all over the moon very few are going to ever hit the mirror.
As for NASA's detectors you appear to have lost the plot. NASA has no measurement of the pre-apollo reflectivity of the sites. You are missing data. Detecting planets is a comparison of luminosity over time, to detect the appearance of the Apollo 11 reflector you need the reading BEFORE Apollo 11.
God, why are NASA believers so stupid?
"First of all, you didn't do the maths, you copied it from a website. I'm not stupid."
Apparently you are stupid. I did the maths. It's not rocket science, it's a VERY SIMPLE percentage calculation. The type a small child of 8 should be able to do.
1. Find out the size of dot as claimed by NASA etc.
2. Calculate the amount of light reflected by the lunar albedo of 12%
3) Calculate the EXTRA amount of light from reflecting the other 78% back from (Reflector_area / Dot_area).
THAT is the calculation. It has NOT been debunked. It is BASIC MATHS. It is not possible to debunk BASIC MATHS unless you'd like to change the value of Pi and make it arbitrarily small.
In the REAL world of MATHS and LOGIC my calculation stands. It is correct, and NO ONE HERE has been able to point out a SINGLE flaw in the maths. You included.
Finally, you haven't the decency to respond to my previous posts and questions therein. THAT says everything about you we need to know.
"I don't think that some minor settling as it cools&shrinks counts as "tectonically active""
I see where you are coming from but the adjective 'tectonic' relates to things pertaining to a world's planetary crust so it might just as easily be described as 'crustally activity' which doesn't specify or imply any particular cause.
Therefore, the term in the article, 'the Moon is still tectonically active' just means 'the Moon is still crustally active' which is true and in this instance it's due to cooling-induced crust shrinkage causing fault strains and subsequent Moonquakes.
I'm still not quite fully understanding just what kind of cheese it is though.
Presumably one of the softer varieties: Fairly malleable throughout, yet covered with a distinct outer "skin", such as with Brie or Camembert.
I'm no scientist though. Could the crust be artificial? Then we'd be talking Edam, or maybe even Baby Bel.
If it turns out there's a horse hiding on the far side of the Moon, then we know it's mascapone.
But personally I suspect halloumi. It doesn't matter what you do to it, or how much you heat it, it just sort of sits there and doesn't change shape of colour. It's witchcraft I tell you! Or possibly alien technology...
I've read both and, probably just due to my own leanings, preferred Seveneves. both good reads though full of interesting detail and obviously obsessively researched
However I feel a persistent disappointment with Stephenson's endings starting way back with 'Snow Crash'. Is it me?
I'm not a teenager so I haven't down voted you because I don't agree :-)
However, I was quite happy with the endings in general but I haven't read them all. I enjoyed Snow Crash, The Diamond Age: or A Young Lady's Illustrated Primer, Cryptonomicon and Reamde.
Just my opinion....
I fell out of love with Stephenson with his huge baroque cycle. I found it incredibly heavy going, and then about 100-150 pages into the first one the tone completely changed and it was if I was reading the Cryptonomicon - and all the modernisms in the writing really grated - which I don't think they would have done if he'd started it that way. So it felt like he couldn't stick to the original style, almost as if he'd started the book, got stuck and then come back to it a few years later and re-started without going back and reading the first half. I'm sure that's unfair, but it's how it read, and I wasn't enjoying the story as much. I didn't manage to finish the second book, and haven't tried him since.
I really liked Cryptonomicon, Zodiac and Snow Crash - though I think they're all a bit uneven in quality/tone. Though I totally forgive Cryptonomicon, as he set himself a pretty hard task with it, and it's a great book. Zodiac is loads of fun and Snow Crash is brilliantly silly. Hiro Protagonist is a pun worthy of an El Reg dodgy headline...
Him and Peter Hamilton were both great disappointments to me. I liked their (perhaps flawed / definitely shorter) early stuff, but then they disappeared into massive lengthy tomes that I got bored with - and frankly didn't think were all that good. About the same time too? Are one or both worth going back to now?
Well come on, faking the moon missions was just practice for our global warming conspiracy. The neatest bit of which, I think you must agree, is the elite thermometer ninja squads, parachuting at night when the contrails have tranquilised the locals, and scraping the markings off the thermometers and painting them back on, fractions of a degree at a time.
There was this one guy who made predictions.. Unfortunately they're about as MrReal's guff.
Actually more real - his predictions are 100% accurate. The problem is the predictions are "you're more likely to get a significant earthquake within 2 weeks before or 2 weeks after a full moon than at any other time".
Since the black hole would have the same mass as the moon, and gravity is inversely proportional to r2, even for a black hole, then exactly nothing would happen - apart from not seeing a moon or receiving reflected sunlight from it. We'd still have the same tides, as there is the same mass object exerting the same amount of gravity in the same orbit (i.e. distance) as the moon was.
Oh, another change would be to NASA's budget to try and land on it, as it'd be much, much harder to try to land on this moon!
But Black holes have a tendency to start gobbling up nearby objects eventually. So its mass keeps growing bigger and stronger all the time devouring passing objects with weaker gravity. Including all the meteors and asteroids bombarding it already. (funny they dont cause moonquakes - Nasa recorded only 28 since 1969).
A Moon-sized hole would have a diameter far smaller than a proton. The only things it might consume would be very high energy, tiny wavelength photons and point-particles like electrons. It would pass right through infalling rocks, dust and gases - though the gravitational field might create a glowing accretion disk.
That would be ever so cool.
Until the gamma cooked the nearby planet.
Eventually, a black hole Moon would radiate hotter than the ambient, the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. This would take a while but it could be used as a heater or power supply or suchlike.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation#Black_hole_evaporation for the maths. It turns out that a Sol-mass-singularity would have a Hawking temperature of a lot less than 2.7K (so it would, for many, many years still be absorbing stuff and getting bigger until the cosmos cools down a lot) and would generate less power than rubbing a cat with an amber rod. It would also take *ages* to boil away, giving us power (not a lot but some) for years and years and years, so that's nice.
I can't be bothered doing the arithmetic to calculate the details for a Lunar-mass blob.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
