Moon Walkers.

[picowatt]

From:  http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/Moon_landing_conspiracy#1._No_crater_under_the_landing_module

"No crater should be expected. The Descent Propulsion System was throttled very far down during the final stages of landing. The Lunar Module was no longer rapidly decelerating, so the descent engine only had to support the module's own weight, which by then was greatly diminished by the near exhaustion of the descent propellants, and the Moon's lower gravity. At the time of landing, the engine's thrust divided by the cross-sectional area of the engine bell is only about 1.5 PSI and that is reduced by the fact that the engine was in a vacuum, causing the exhaust to spread out.

Rocket exhaust gases expand much more rapidly after leaving the engine nozzle in a vacuum than in an atmosphere. The effect of an atmosphere on rocket plumes can be easily seen in launches from Earth; as the rocket rises through the thinning atmosphere, the exhaust plumes broaden very noticeably. Rocket engines designed for vacuum operation have longer bells than those designed for use at the Earth's surface, but they still cannot prevent this spreading. The Lunar Module's exhaust gases therefore expanded rapidly well beyond the landing site. Even if they hadn't, a simple calculation will show that the pressure at the end of the descent engine bell was much too low to carve out a crater. However, the descent engines did scatter a considerable amount of very fine surface dust as seen in 16mm movies of each landing, and as Neil Armstrong said as the landing neared ("...kicking up some dust..."). This significantly impaired visibility in the final stages of landing, and many mission commanders commented on it. Photographs do show slightly disturbed dust beneath the descent engine. And finally, the landers were generally moving horizontally as well as vertically until right before landing, so the exhaust would not be focused on any one surface spot for very long, and the compactness of the lunar soil below a thin surface layer of dust also make it virtually impossible for the descent engine to blast out a "crater". "



From: https://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2009/07/14/the-apollo-moon-hoax-why-is-there-no-blast-crater-under-the-lunar-module/

"First, some numbers: The lunar module (LM) descent stage engine had a maximum thrust of 9870 ft-lb, but this was throttleable back to a minimum of 1050 ft-lb. Sounds like a lot. But, the diameter of the nozzle was 63 inches, which is an area of about 3120 in2. Dividing this into the force (thrust) and you have a pressure range of 0.4-3.2 ft-lb/in2, otherwise known as psi. This is equivalent to the metric 2760-22,100 N/m2. But let's stick with psi.

Anyone who owns a car probably knows that this is already significantly less than your tire pressure ... by a factor of 10-100. When Apollo 11 landed, the thrust was down to about 1/3 of max, so down to around 1 psi.

Now let's look at the average adult footstep: The average non-American weighs around 150 lbs. The average human footprint is around 50 in2 (don't believe me? do the math yourself!). Divide the first into the second and you have the average human footstep exerting a simple 3 psi.

This is 3x larger than Apollo's engines!!

The very fact that the astronauts walking on the moon did not create "blast craters" underneath them should be explanation enough as to why the engine did not create a blast crater under it — the pressure was simply too low."




http://braeunig.us/apollo/LMcrater.htm

[tinman]

Now we are going to look at the heat/thermal issue regarding space craft in space,and on the moon.

Im just going to pop this in here PW>
Quote: When I look at your flag closeup, all I can see is that it appears that it might be made from a woven material, or possibly even a non-woven material.  Apparently, I do not have the same magic powers (or closed mindedness) as you do and cannot tell what that material is from just looking at the image.
Quote: You really should visit a shake and bake facility.  Perhaps they don't exist in Australia.  It is very apparent you are out of your league and know not of what you speak.
Quote: Actually, regarding the flags, it appears they were indeed off the shelf nylon flags:

Anyway,on to more of what i dont know what im talking about.
A quote from your self.
Quote 1 :During the trip to the moon, the CM and LM were slowly rotated to prevent heat from building excessively on the sun facing side.  Because of this, the thin outer panels saw heating and cooling differentials that made them expand and contract.

Quote: You know so little about the thermodynamics of space or on the moon, but somehow feel qualified to make judgements regarding the hard work and engineering of those that do.

Quote: Do you believe the space shuttle or the ISS were/are real?
I have already answered this on a number of occasions,but one more time for you.
Yes,as i have stated,i do believe in the ISS,and satellite's. I have held a piece of skylab in my own hand's. Many large parts of skylab fell to earth in a town called Esperance,which is where my wife and myself went for our holiday around this time last year-it is about 700km from my home town. I watched skylab fall to earth myself. Here is a bit of funny but true information in regards to that. The shire council or Esperance actually fined the US/NASA  $400.00 for littering lol. The funnier thing is,the US government actually ignored the fine(being the arrogant bunch of pricks they are-with the !im to big! to be paying fines attitude)A radio station ended up collecting from the US public,and brought over the check them self 30 years later on the 30th anniversary .  The pieces and original check(that was never cashed) is on display at the Esperance museum.
http://www.abc.net.au/local/photos/2009/07/09/2621733.htm
http://www.skymania.com/wp/2009/07/nasas-litter-bill-paid-30-years-on.html/691/

Anyway-back to the thermal issue.
Quote: if you are going to critique Apollo, or any other space related system, I think you should take the time to research just how it is done first.
Like with the flag issue?.
Quote: No, I am not kidding, you cannot tell what that material is just from looking at the image.
Seems i did though The power of observation is a great thing to posses,along with the ability to visually recognize materials.
Quote: I have no idea what you are referring to.  What is "termination of convection"?  I stand behind my posts and will admit to any errors you point out.  Please do quote a post.  I recall you stating, regarding the vacuum of the moon, that heat can only flow via conduction and my response was "conduction to what?" and offered that conduction could be used to sink heat to the lunar surface, but that the lunar soil was a fairly poor conductor of heat.  Is that the post you are referring to?
Yes,i have stated many time's now ,in regards to how would i get rid of the heat from the drive motors. Heat from the wheel motors(by way of conduction) could be dissipated through the aluminum,stainless steel,titanium wheels to the moons surface. As you have stated that the moons surface is a poor conductor of heat,we can now use that as a reference in the previous post i made in regards to the flag's,and how the link you posted in regards to the flags being blown down by the rocket engines,and lying on the moons surface.

Quote: Regarding how to get rid of heat in outer space:
Heat flows from higher temperatures to lower temperature.
In a vacuum, heat moves via radiation.
Here is where it starts to get good

Quote: What is the temperature of outer space? (hint: "Mars ain't the kind of place place to raise your kids, in fact its...")
What's mars got to do with the thermal values of the vacuum of space?
Mars has an atmosphere-->2.7% nitrogen,  95.3% carbon dioxide,and a small amount of other gasses.

http://www.space.com/21059-space-station-cooling-system-explained-infographic.html
Quote: Liquid ammonia circulates through the pipes, carrying waste heat from the solar panels to the photovoltaic radiator panels, where the heat escapes into space. This keeps the solar panels cool.
How nice for the solar panels

Quote: Here on Earth, if the surface temperature were +200C, the air temperature would be very hot indeed, because air is a pretty good conductor of heat, particularly when compared to a vacuum.  Surely most are familiar with a vacuum thermos.
Surely most are familiar with a vacuum thermos
How and why dose a vacuum thermos work so well?-->How close to an absolute vacuum dose the average day vacuum thermos have compared to that of space?.
Now we have a look at dissipating heat by way of radiation.
Quote wikipedia-Thermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation generated by the thermal motion of charged particles in matter.
What about in space?- Quote NASA-You remember your college physics correctly. Space is a vacuum, and heat can only be exchanged through radiation. However, that is a quite powerful means of exchanging heat. Have you ever stood in front of a campfire on a very cold winter night? While facing the fire you may feel roasted in your face, while your back feels frigid. The fire radiates heat at you, and your back radiates heat into the cold night. Of course, the cold air around you plays a role, but if there is no wind, the major heat exchange is radiation.
Lol,great to see NASA use an example of heat radiation here on earth to explain heat radiation in the vacuum of space. But none the less,the good old vacuum thermos gives us many answers. Some will say that the radiated heat in the case of a vacuum thermos is decreased by way of the shiny surfaces the thermos is made from. I wounder how my vacuum thermos works so well with it's black plastic interior cell?. But anyway PW,you seem to think that the space craft is rotated in order to keep the temperature even,and to dissipate the heat that was collected by the side of the space craft facing the sun,but rotating that part of the space craft into the shaded side--is this correct?.

We know that at the earths surface,we get around 1320 watts per square meter of solar radiation energy,so how much per square meter would we see in space of solar energy hitting a solid object? I am unable to find a conclusive answer,as viewing many sites,i found many answers. NASA and wiki seem to both lean toward the earths surface receiving around 67% of the solar energy from the sun,due to the rest being deflected by both the atmosphere,and reflected by earth it self. But it would be safe to assume that there is more solar energy per meter square hitting an object in space,than there is hitting the earths surface. Knowing that,we can also assume that any object in space/or the part there of facing direct sunlight, would heat up far quicker than the same object/or part there of,facing the sun,here on earth. The question at hand now is-can that amount of heat be radiated away by means of radiation in space? We know it cannot be dissipated by means of induction or convection,so that leaves us with radiation. If radiation is so effective in the vacuum of space,then why dose a vacuum flask keep our coffee water so hot for so long?. I know you are going to make reference to the fact that it is the shiny reflective walls of the thermos that reduces the heat being radiated away from the water,but as i stated,my cheap vacuum flask with the black inner plastic shell still keeps my water hot for a long period of time. So this is telling us that the amount of heat that can be removed by way of radiation is very little in this case,and we also know that the value of the vacuum in the vacuum thermos is not going to be anywhere near the value of the vacuum of space.

We then have to ask what kind of temperature drop's would our space craft experience when on the shaded/shadowed side of the earth during it's orbit around the earth?. The temperature drop during night would be far more extreme on the moon-would it not?. But lets stick to the temperatures/thermal problem during the day on the moon.

I love this speech.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUx1SURbb3g
What are these protective layers he is talking about i wonder?.



Brad.

[tinman]

From: 

"No crater should be expected. The Descent Propulsion System was throttled very far down during the final stages of landing. The Lunar Module was no longer rapidly decelerating, so the descent engine only had to support the module's own weight, which by then was greatly diminished by the near exhaustion of the descent propellants, and the Moon's lower gravity. At the time of landing, the engine's thrust divided by the cross-sectional area of the engine bell is only about 1.5 PSI and that is reduced by the fact that the engine was in a vacuum, causing the exhaust to spread out.

Rocket exhaust gases expand much more rapidly after leaving the engine nozzle in a vacuum than in an atmosphere. The effect of an atmosphere on rocket plumes can be easily seen in launches from Earth; as the rocket rises through the thinning atmosphere, the exhaust plumes broaden very noticeably. Rocket engines designed for vacuum operation have longer bells than those designed for use at the Earth's surface, but they still cannot prevent this spreading. The Lunar Module's exhaust gases therefore expanded rapidly well beyond the landing site. Even if they hadn't, a simple calculation will show that the pressure at the end of the descent engine bell was much too low to carve out a crater. However, the descent engines did scatter a considerable amount of very fine surface dust as seen in 16mm movies of each landing, and as Neil Armstrong said as the landing neared ("...kicking up some dust..."). This significantly impaired visibility in the final stages of landing, and many mission commanders commented on it. Photographs do show slightly disturbed dust beneath the descent engine. And finally, the landers were generally moving horizontally as well as vertically until right before landing, so the exhaust would not be focused on any one surface spot for very long, and the compactness of the lunar soil below a thin surface layer of dust also make it virtually impossible for the descent engine to blast out a "crater". "

No argument there PW-i can agree with that.

"First, some numbers: The lunar module (LM) descent stage engine had a maximum thrust of 9870 ft-lb, but this was throttleable back to a minimum of 1050 ft-lb.

I have read numbers closer to 2600lb's-but anyway.
http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/LMcrater.htm

Now let's look at the average adult footstep: The average non-American weighs around 150 lbs. The average human footprint is around 50 in2 (don't believe me? do the math yourself!). Divide the first into the second and you have the average human footstep exerting a simple 3 psi.

This is 3x larger than Apollo's engines!!

The very fact that the astronauts walking on the moon did not create "blast craters" underneath them should be explanation enough as to why the engine did not create a blast crater under it — the pressure was simply too low."

As i said-i have no problem with this explanation in regards to no blast crater.
But you did not explain as to how the ascent modules rocket engine managed to knock down the flag's ?. Or why the sharp/jagged dirt particles traveling at over 3600KPH did no damage what so ever to the landers feet and leg foil protection-or why they are spotlessly clean.

Brad.

[tinman]

I will throw this in here,as i find it interesting.
When asked why the flag flapped about,as if blowing in the breeze,we often hear the story about how the flag is made of an aluminum composite material,or some other type of material you mentioned earlier on PW,and due to the stiffness of that material,the flags seem'd to wave around as if they were being blown by wind. But the movement of the flags was due to the astronauts trying to twist the flag poles into the lunar surface,and also the fact that the flag poles were quite springy . But as we now know that the flags were just !off the shelf! nylon flags,do these reasons for the flags waving around still hold true?. Well we could say yes if the astronauts were still twisting the poles into the ground,or the springing of the poles had still not settled--the believers always seem to use these video's to explain or dismiss away the movement of the flags.
We also know that there is no atmosphere on the moon,and that means that the flags should not be disturbed by an astronaut bouncing past the flag without physical contact.
I am wondering as to what you have to say about the video below from the Apollo 15 mission.
Watch carefully from :32 to :40,and then from 2:35 to 2:55. At 2:35 when the astronaut bounces past the flag,and clearly at some distance away from the flag so as no physical contact is made,you can clearly see the flag being pulled toward the astronaut,and this clearly shows a vacuum/pressure drop being created behind the astronaut-the same effect you would see in an environment that has an atmosphere.
How dose this happen in the vacuum environment of the moon?.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y


Brad

[tinman]

It is good to see some true experts in the field of physics and photography are analyzing the photograph.
The picture in question regarding the hot spot from artificial lighting attached.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYnIvrDlhb4