Post: #1

I'm sure this has been covered before but I have to ask.

In this picture of the Lunar lander, why isn't the dust beneath the craft disturbed? With a 10,000 lb thrust engine, the area beneath should be cleared to rock. Even if the engine was throttled back the surface should show signs of disturbance.



Full size image here: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5863-69.jpg

http://lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds23.1.html

Moon Dust, Rocket Engines, and NASA

by Morgan Reynolds

At 12:31 a.m. central time August 6 NASA will bless us with its latest extravaganza, a multi-billion-dollar, decade-long effort to launch a six-wheel rover dubbed ‘Curiosity’ on the red planet 154 million miles from home. Reading the newspaper one morning, I was amused to learn about the Rube Goldberg "braking" system invented to control landing on Mars. A huge parachute is supposed to slow the craft despite an atmosphere only one percent of the earth’s, followed by freefall, then eight rocket engines ignite and lurch the craft out of the path of the trailing parachute somehow previously jettisoned, followed by a second freefall episode beginning at 66 feet altitude followed by a ‘sky crane’ lowering the rover as it unfurls its wheels, capped off by pyrotechnic charges that send blades to cut the nylon tethers. Oh my.

The rationale for this dubious landing system? "In theory, the rockets could provide a gentle enough landing to finish the job. But in practice, they would kick up such a dust storm that it could ruin the rover." Ah yes, I agree the inevitable dust storm would be a big problem. Engineers must design around that. But why wasn’t a dust storm a formidable problem on July 20, 1969, the occasion of man’s "greatest technological achievement," landing a man on the moon and returning him safely via Apollo 11? The moon is plenty dusty too.

Dust, or lack of same, is one of many puzzles about the Apollo missions NASA showed us over four decades ago: how the heck could there be no surface disturbance below the lunar module (LM), no crater blown out by the LM’s rocket engine? All six moon landings NASA "conducted" (Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17) showed the same ‘no hole’ below the LM. No disturbance whatever (notice no stars in the background too?). If we trust the NASA-generated "real time" broadcast, Neil Armstrong called the surface "fine and powdery" and continued: "Okay. The descent engine did not leave a crater of any size. It has about one foot clearance on the ground. We’re essentially on a very level place here."

How fortunate. And impossible, well, impossible if the landing was real. There was no dust on the LM support legs or leg pads either and no sign the engine nacelle or ground below it was burned, singed or melted. How could that happen? A 10,000 lb. thrust engine, even if throttled back to 3,000 lb. must blow out a crater, down to bedrock for heaven’s sake, making a landing treacherous because of virtually zero visibility and unknown terrain exposed. The motor would generate heat of 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit and even if throttled back to, say, 3,000 d.F., only 1,300-2,400 d.F. is required to melt and fuse rock. None of what we expect happened.

Despite a rocket descent engine allegedly working hard a few feet below Armstrong and Aldrin, incredibly, and I do mean incredibly, Apollo 11’s moon landing was remarkably quiet beneath the voices of astronauts and Houston control. It should have been loud as all-get-out, around 140 dB. The engine displayed admirable noise-vibration-harshness properties too, setting off no shake, rattle and roll aboard the flimsy craft, no heat problem, in fact, no problems of any kind. Oddly, Armstrong did not hover like a helicopter pilot does during landing, despite the difficulty of controlling an LM in a vacuum versus earth atmosphere. It was the first time anyone had landed a LM yet reverse thrust control went flawlessly, like everything else with Apollo. By contrast, Armstrong was nearly killed when he could not control the LM simulator on earth in May 1968 but for a timely ejection.

Abundant evidence proves NASA never pulled off the moon landings back in the slide-rule days of the 1960s. The biggest obstacle remains the lethal radiation unprotected astronauts must encounter above low earth orbit from three sources: the Van Allen radiation belts, galactic cosmic rays, and solar particle events, aka sun flares. Radiation makes manned deep space travel impossible to this day. Dr. James Van Allen, credited with discovery of the radiation belts, knew it full well and in 1970 courageously supported U.S. Senator William Proxmire (D, WI) and three other Senators in their attempt to eliminate NASA’s manned space flight program.1

Neil Armstrong could have said, "One small step for man, one giant leap of faith for mankind," injecting a note of honesty into this governmental swindle. The moon fraud will bite the dust eventually, of that there is no doubt, if only because it failed to sprinkle enough moon dust out from under the Lunar Module as well as into our eyes.

"In the US, there is basically one party -- the business party. It has two factions, called Democrats and Republicans, which are somewhat different but carry out variations on the same policies. By and large, I am opposed to those policies. As is most of the population."Noam Chomsky

Post: #2

the answer is because they filmed that sort of stuff in the area of the united states they blasted out to look like the moon



or on a hollywood stage

Post: #3

Are the engines engaged when it is landing?

Post: #4

The wind blew away all traces of the surface disturbance.

Post: #5

They did go to the moon but that isn't the film.

Post: #6

Vegas  Wrote:

Are the engines engaged when it is landing?

yeah they have to be otherwise .... splat. less than earth for sure but some degree.

Post: #7

DanceChillGroove  Wrote:

The wind blew away all traces of the surface disturbance.

Yeah the wind on the moon, lol.

Post: #8

Swamp gas.

Post: #9

I think the actual full trip to the moon has been kept confidential, and what was shown on T.V. was a recreation of the event, with all the interesting stuff cut out.

Post: #10

~.~  Wrote:

the answer is because they filmed that sort of stuff in the area of the united states they blasted out to look like the moon



or on a hollywood stage

Maybe, although there are other possibilities.

Vegas  Wrote:

Are the engines engaged when it is landing?

I'm fairly sure they are. No way to control the landing without power to the thrusters. Also, there should still be dust on the landing pads since moon dust is supposed to have the consistency of concrete powder.

"In the US, there is basically one party -- the business party. It has two factions, called Democrats and Republicans, which are somewhat different but carry out variations on the same policies. By and large, I am opposed to those policies. As is most of the population."Noam Chomsky

Post: #11

dedhead66  Wrote:

I'm sure this has been covered before but I have to ask.

In this picture of the Lunar lander, why isn't the dust beneath the craft disturbed? With a 10,000 lb thrust engine, the area beneath should be cleared to rock. Even if the engine was throttled back the surface should show signs of disturbance.



Full size image here: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5863-69.jpg

http://lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds23.1.html

Moon Dust, Rocket Engines, and NASA

by Morgan Reynolds

At 12:31 a.m. central time August 6 NASA will bless us with its latest extravaganza, a multi-billion-dollar, decade-long effort to launch a six-wheel rover dubbed ‘Curiosity’ on the red planet 154 million miles from home. Reading the newspaper one morning, I was amused to learn about the Rube Goldberg "braking" system invented to control landing on Mars. A huge parachute is supposed to slow the craft despite an atmosphere only one percent of the earth’s, followed by freefall, then eight rocket engines ignite and lurch the craft out of the path of the trailing parachute somehow previously jettisoned, followed by a second freefall episode beginning at 66 feet altitude followed by a ‘sky crane’ lowering the rover as it unfurls its wheels, capped off by pyrotechnic charges that send blades to cut the nylon tethers. Oh my.

The rationale for this dubious landing system? "In theory, the rockets could provide a gentle enough landing to finish the job. But in practice, they would kick up such a dust storm that it could ruin the rover." Ah yes, I agree the inevitable dust storm would be a big problem. Engineers must design around that. But why wasn’t a dust storm a formidable problem on July 20, 1969, the occasion of man’s "greatest technological achievement," landing a man on the moon and returning him safely via Apollo 11? The moon is plenty dusty too.

Dust, or lack of same, is one of many puzzles about the Apollo missions NASA showed us over four decades ago: how the heck could there be no surface disturbance below the lunar module (LM), no crater blown out by the LM’s rocket engine? All six moon landings NASA "conducted" (Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17) showed the same ‘no hole’ below the LM. No disturbance whatever (notice no stars in the background too?). If we trust the NASA-generated "real time" broadcast, Neil Armstrong called the surface "fine and powdery" and continued: "Okay. The descent engine did not leave a crater of any size. It has about one foot clearance on the ground. We’re essentially on a very level place here."

How fortunate. And impossible, well, impossible if the landing was real. There was no dust on the LM support legs or leg pads either and no sign the engine nacelle or ground below it was burned, singed or melted. How could that happen? A 10,000 lb. thrust engine, even if throttled back to 3,000 lb. must blow out a crater, down to bedrock for heaven’s sake, making a landing treacherous because of virtually zero visibility and unknown terrain exposed. The motor would generate heat of 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit and even if throttled back to, say, 3,000 d.F., only 1,300-2,400 d.F. is required to melt and fuse rock. None of what we expect happened.

Despite a rocket descent engine allegedly working hard a few feet below Armstrong and Aldrin, incredibly, and I do mean incredibly, Apollo 11’s moon landing was remarkably quiet beneath the voices of astronauts and Houston control. It should have been loud as all-get-out, around 140 dB. The engine displayed admirable noise-vibration-harshness properties too, setting off no shake, rattle and roll aboard the flimsy craft, no heat problem, in fact, no problems of any kind. Oddly, Armstrong did not hover like a helicopter pilot does during landing, despite the difficulty of controlling an LM in a vacuum versus earth atmosphere. It was the first time anyone had landed a LM yet reverse thrust control went flawlessly, like everything else with Apollo. By contrast, Armstrong was nearly killed when he could not control the LM simulator on earth in May 1968 but for a timely ejection.

Abundant evidence proves NASA never pulled off the moon landings back in the slide-rule days of the 1960s. The biggest obstacle remains the lethal radiation unprotected astronauts must encounter above low earth orbit from three sources: the Van Allen radiation belts, galactic cosmic rays, and solar particle events, aka sun flares. Radiation makes manned deep space travel impossible to this day. Dr. James Van Allen, credited with discovery of the radiation belts, knew it full well and in 1970 courageously supported U.S. Senator William Proxmire (D, WI) and three other Senators in their attempt to eliminate NASA’s manned space flight program.1

Neil Armstrong could have said, "One small step for man, one giant leap of faith for mankind," injecting a note of honesty into this governmental swindle. The moon fraud will bite the dust eventually, of that there is no doubt, if only because it failed to sprinkle enough moon dust out from under the Lunar Module as well as into our eyes.

Its because they didn't go!!!! They spent TRILLIONS of dollars and launched 16 humugous rockets just to fool you.

Post: #12

LoP Guest  Wrote:

They did go to the moon but that isn't the film.

Rager  Wrote:

I think the actual full trip to the moon has been kept confidential, and what was shown on T.V. was a recreation of the event, with all the interesting stuff cut out.

Sounds like you and Rager are on the same page. So you both believe we made it to the moon but for some unknown reason the real moon landing was not shown?

"In the US, there is basically one party -- the business party. It has two factions, called Democrats and Republicans, which are somewhat different but carry out variations on the same policies. By and large, I am opposed to those policies. As is most of the population."Noam Chomsky

Post: #13

AC488  Wrote:

Its because they didn't go!!!! They spent TRILLIONS of dollars and launched 16 humugous rockets just to fool you.

Why isn't the area beneath the lander disturbed?

"In the US, there is basically one party -- the business party. It has two factions, called Democrats and Republicans, which are somewhat different but carry out variations on the same policies. By and large, I am opposed to those policies. As is most of the population."Noam Chomsky

Post: #14

dedhead66  Wrote:

LoP Guest  Wrote:

They did go to the moon but that isn't the film.

Rager  Wrote:

I think the actual full trip to the moon has been kept confidential, and what was shown on T.V. was a recreation of the event, with all the interesting stuff cut out.

Sounds like you and Rager are on the same page. So you both believe we made it to the moon but for some unknown reason the real moon landing was not shown?

Oh yeah, they went for sure. They didn't spend billions and launch rockets for no reason; as Moran488 so gracefully said it that he had to slap his own face.

I think, just like most everything the government does, they do it then they tell you about it later if it will benefit them. Telling the American people (and the world) definitely gave them a huge boost politically which they still enjoy down to this day. But, that's all just scenery for the masses. The real question, of course, is WHY?

Why go to the moon? What was there? If it's a barren rock why hide it/recreate the film? Why are the surviving original Astronauts SO tight-lipped about it? Why is it that going on 60 years later these questions still haunt us?

Who knows for sure. But what I do know is that they made it to the moon with less computing power than your cell phone has and we have never gone back, never explored, never set up colonies, never seen high-res modern photographs. They have never pointed the various modern telescopes at our closest celestial neighbor because that's "not important" even though that same telescope can find stuff 1000000 light years away that a human could never reach in many, many lifetimes.

Post: #15

Look into the size and packing of the lunar module, there in lies the real answer