http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/64711...ushpmg00000023
Printable View
I love NDT... But I lost a little respect for him when Rogan asked about the fake moon landings. His response was an amazingly unscientific "Just look how big that Saturn rocket was, they built it big enough to go to the moon!".
Meanwhile ignoring the fact that a craft on the moon that wanted to achieve escape velocity to be able to dock with a craft in stationary orbit around the moon would need to achieve a velocity of 2400 m/sec (escape velocity of the moon, per wikipedia). In other words, you need a massive rocket to get away from the moon's gravity, which they obviously didn't have.
Here is a video of the lunar lander lifting off: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMBcLg0DkLA
And we are told to believe it somehow achieved 2400 m/sec velocity? not to mention that it obviously lifts off with linear velocity (instead of velocity being affected by acceleration of a rocket).
The whole lunar landing thing is such a joke, yet NDT felt compelled to tow the bullshit party-line.
I still love the guy, but I was hoping for more from him.
I'm surprised that being a wrestler and knowing Joe he doesn't have interest in jiu jitsu. I'm sure he'd love it
Beast !!
Yea I wanna listen to the podcast and see if Joe tried to sell him on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by hespectnogi
\Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Murray
I'm assuming this view of the lunar landing module STILL on the moon is fake as well?
http://www.space.com/14874-apollo-11...oon-photo.html
The other thing I don't get about people who think the moon landings were fake. There were 6 landings over a 3 year period. Wouldn't it be impossible to fake this 6 times without real proof of it being fake getting out? The only "proof" that we have of it being fake are images with "questionable" shadows. Nobody has ever found the 6 studios used to film the landings. Nobody has ever found the actual fake footage with actors walking on set. How could you fake something 6 times over a 3 year period and not have it be exposed?
This is a common argument used when trying to assert that 17 Saudi's and a dude in a cave blew up WTC1,2, and 7. As far as it "not being exposed", it has been exposed... the fact that we're talking about it proves that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ric
Also notice that you have changed my argument from the basic physics involved in achieving a stable orbit to something about photographs and shadows, which I never mentioned.
Obviously this isn't the right "forum" for a real debate over things like moon landing fakery, or 911 truth. The truth about all those things is out there. Investigate if you want, or don't. Believe what you want.
As a science major who is also fond of conspiracies, I saw absolutely nothing wrong with Neil and Joe's discussion about the moon landings. The only bit that actually seemed unanswerable was the flag movement as the astronaut bounced by.
SO obviously you believe that the USSR was in on it? Otherwise them (and many other nations) would have exposed it as fake. So was it part of a global conspiracy in your view?Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Murray
dammit, got sucked into the looney conspiracy world again. lol
But you presented no "basic physics", just a number.Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Murray
Also I dont think you know what the term "linear velocity" means because it doesnt make sense the way you used it. I took physics and biological application of physic a few years ago and I was taught that linear velocity is this,
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/mo...las-d_941.html
http://www.chegg.com/homework-help/d...ar-velocity-65
Beside the fact that you probably meant to type "linear acceleration", and not, "velocity", it still makes no sense. Linear velocity only denotes the relative way that velocity is measured, as opposed to angular velocity.
Looking at the gross weight of the craft (LEM), the moon gravity, escape velocity and the amount of fuel present, it seems to all make sense. The math is a bit difficult because the craft loses weight as it burns up its fuel (and I dont want to verify the thrust that they could produce, its really hard) but Im not seeing a problem? I'd bee curious to see the math you did showing that they could not have escaped the moon gravity and why you believe that other nations would not have exposed this obvious oversight decades ago?
I did not say "linear velocity", I said "velocity". Which is, in this case, implicitly linear. But escape velocity has nothing to do with acceleration, so that part of your comment suggests some misunderstanding on your part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron Gustaveson
As far as your argument that "Russian government would expose it" I think you are making some large assumptions about what a given government thinks, or why it does what it does. This is, again, an argument you hear all the time with respect to WTC-7. "If it was a controlled demolition, certainly someone would have come out and blown the whistle". In both cases the argument that "someone would expose it" when weighed again the massive amount of empirical evidence is a very weak argument. Not to mention that if the Russian government came out and said it was fake, you and nearly all Americans would not have believed it anyway.
As far as the physics, they are well beyond the scope of this thread, but I will give some links to help (assuming you are actually interested). If you are interested in the velocity required to escape the Moon's orbit, you can start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity
That link, and other source will consistently list the escape velocity of the Moon as 2400 meters per second (also note this is a measure of velocity not acceleration. Acceleration would have been listed in meters per second per second m/sec/sec) This is because acceleration is a measure of the change in velocity over time.
In my original comment I said "basic physics". That was misleading. The physics is actually quite complicated. The details and explanation is well become the scope of this thread, not to mention typing the mathematical symbols required for summation and integration into a forum post would be difficult. If you are genuinely interested (and have not already made up your mind based on what you want to believe) you can begin by learning to calculate delta-v. Also you need to understand specific impulse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_impulse
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/specimp.html (this one is going to be particularly important to you later)
This will give you a basis to understand Tsiolkovsky's equation. This equation, which far more primitive that what you need to actually launch a rocket, can help get you started in understanding the calculus involved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolko...ocket_equation
At that point you will be ready to start double-checking the numbers listed by NASA for the ascent module, listed here a few pages down
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module
But we're still not there yet. From here we need to talk about rocket types, fuel, oxidizers, and their respective volumes, masses, and engine efficiency.
http://www.braeunig.us/space/propel.htm
That link will show you various liquid-fuel engines and their ISP, as well as the densities of various fuel types. You can cross-reference wikipedia to determine which types were used in the lunar ascent module.
After you have become fluent in all of these concepts we can do what wikipedia will not do, calculate the burn time. To do this, go back and refer to this page again:
http://www.braeunig.us/space/propuls.htm
in figure 1.21 you will see the equation used to determine burn-time.
Calculate that number, based on all the information NASA gives you. Then you also need the rate of fuel consumption, which is also conspicously missing from the NASA numbers. Some of the details are not available anywhere in fact, as they are a matter of national security. But using known controls you can take some educated guesses.
What you'll find is that you need a sustained burn of more than 10 minutes to come even close to the 2400 m/sec required. If you really do your homework you will also notice that achieving a stable orbit does not require the entire escape velocity, but is generally assumed to be about 71% of it. Since the force of gravity is reduced by the inverse-square of the distance, most of the velocity is required to get into orbit, with a small fraction required to go from a low-orbit to escape the system completely.
At this point we have to do the calculus, which I am not willing to do here. It's not my intention to try to convince you of anything. In fact I was reluctant to even type this response. In the end I chose to mainly because there may be some people reading it who have some background in math or physics who are open minded and actually interested in doing the math. So I'm trying to provide the resources you need to do so.
To summarize in simple terms, what you are looking for is this: calculate the burn time required based on the ISP. Then calculate the rate of fuel consumption to determine how long the burn could possibly last, given the amount of fuel. You'll find these do not add up at all, not even close.
Despite all this many people will simply refuse to believe it. You see this all the time in WTC-7. You can see a video of it going down at freefall speed, next to a video of 10 different controlled demolitions, yet most people still refuse to believe. Same thing here, but despite that, I'll show you a couple pictures.
Here is the rocket required to achieve escape velocity of the Earth
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1grd5rQxV1qi3lpp.jpg
And here is a film of the lunar module lifting off from the moon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4yYZh1U908
This, for most people who look with open eyes, is just as obvious as WTC-7 controlled demolition videos. Strange then, that so many have such a hard time seeing the truth.
Heck, that lunar blastoff video alone is definitive proof... notice how it moves upward at a constant velocity? That's not how rockets work... the velocity should be very very low at first, and then gaining velocity over time... like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uoVfZpx5dY
It's also amusing how the camera tracks the lift off... guess that was done with optical tracking and computers right?
The whole thing, if you really look into it, is a joke.
If you watch this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Obd_jTO66-0
And you don't think it's obviously a complete fake, then I really don't know what else to say. I guess I'm crazy and wrong, just another conspiracy theorist. :)
You must be new here then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Murray
Aaron, incase any of my replies seem hostile at all, that is not my intention. I've read a number of your posts and you seem like an honest, compassionate, up-front guy. I mean you no disrespect at all.
I think what I'm learning as I get older is that you cannot force the red-pill on people. It's an act of free will to take it. The majority choose blue, and who can blame them?
People have difficult jobs, kids of raise, bills to pay, so many concerns the last thing they want to do it have their entire belief system up-ended. I harbor no-ill will toward someone who chooses blue.
I should probably learn to be more gentle with these kinds of subjects. And in fact I was and still am nervous about posting so much material into what is primarily a JJ forum.
However I've seen enough of Master Bravo on JRE and his own podcasts to feel comfortable taking a little bit of liberty here. The forum is even named Nibiru!
Everyone can choose, and both choices are just fine.
http://counterinception.com/sites/de...illRedPill.jpg
You did write linear velocity, look at post# 2.
The reason I wrote the you must have meant linear acceleration is because I though you were saying the way the craft accelerates does not look right, if there is a misunderstanding on my part it is in my assumption as to what you meant when you wrote, "not to mention that it obviously lifts off with linear velocity (instead of velocity being affected by acceleration of a rocket)."
I think you are the one making large and incorrect assumptions as to how Russia would respond to a fake moon landing. What empirical evidence are you referring to? Was the USSR and the US government actully secret allies? Why would the American public not believing the USSR's exposure be a deterrent to the USSR to release the information?
The link to basics of escape velocity for the moon was obviously not needed. Nor was most of the rest of your post. I already stated that Ive taken physics and Ive also finished all of my calculus classes. It seems you posted this basic background info as opposed to the actual math that you believe shows a problem. All the background on how to do the math was not asked for.
You could have just said, "I haven't done the math".
Im also not asking you to convince me or anyone else of your beliefs, I just wanted to know why YOU think what you're saying is true. I assumed you'd have the information to go along with your position.
I dont claim to know if the moon landing were faked or not.
I dont believe that anyone can analyze with their eyeballs what the acceleration or velocity of the craft was. It seems to me that as an object moves farther away it become very hard to judge acceleration and velocity especially when you are viewing from below the craft as opposed to from far away.Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Murray
How it was filmed and how the camera moved are very interesting questions. I assume if you can get people on the moon and back though, you could figure out the camera stuff as well. That is assuming they actully got guys to the moon though.
The real question is, who has taken which pill.
Also i wouldn't worry about discussing this stuff here. Its the only place I discuss it. And I dont take differences of opinion personally.
The Red Pill brings with it a very painful, awkward, uncomfortable, alienating, difficult, challenging, radical departure from what you were taught as a child is the truth. The nice comfy world that you have grown to love is replaced with something much more difficult.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron Gustaveson
The Blue Pill represents the easy acceptance, compliance, go-with-the-herd mentality that does not require a complete top-to-bottom readjustment of your belief system.
I'm assuming you won't argue with that?
Aaron, if you and I walk into the town square, each of us defending our side of this debate. Which of us do you think faces ridicule, insults, and attacks? Which view point do you think equates to which pill?
Perhaps I misunderstand, but it seems like you're saying I ate the blue one and you ate the red one?
Can you imagine how much more successful Eddie would be (financially, socially) if he didn't say the stuff he says? No more pot, not more 911, no more JFK... way more money, way easier acceptance into the existing system... which pill is that again?
All the people who think Fox news or CNN is telling them truth, they all believe the same thing, that moon landings are real, 911 was a dude in a cave, JFK was LHO by himself, Pearl Harbor was a surprise, Gulf of T was an attack, Hitler was not supplied and funded by western bankers, the FED has the well-being of humanity in mind...
Which viewpoint gets you beat up if you proclaim it in the wrong crowd? Do you think the Architects and Engineers for 911 truth will smash your face if you hand out pamphlets at their speaking engagement? Now consider the opposite scenario... Which pill is which again?
I suppose you're right, it is a matter of who took which pill. And perhaps my blue pill has confused and lulled me into the idea that I ate the red one? Perhaps. I have an alternative hypothesis :)
Goddammit.
All I wanted was to celebrate the badassery of one of the smartest guys in the world.
Fuck.
I dont think Eddie would be any more successful if he didnt voice his views.
And yes Ross, NDT is a badass. Sorry, i can't help myself.
EVERY GOD DAMN TIME! This is why we can't have nice thing! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ross Davidson
The people are crying out for a hero to come forth! Sadly, all that's available is a bored half-drunk geophysicist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Murray
Since we only care about final and initial values, we don't actually don't need to do any calculus at all, just some algebra.
All we need is the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation:
delV = Ve * ln( mo / mf)
delV is the change in velocity we need (.7*2400=1680) [m/s]
Ve is the exhaust velocity (average speed of the exhaust jet) [m/s]
mo/mf is the ratio of initial to final mass
Ve of the lunar lander is 3005 m/s
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_Propulsion_System
This number isn't controversial at all - go to your local air show and you can see an SR71 with an exhaust velocity close to 20000 m/s
So what can we calculate with the above equation? The fuel mass we need!
1680 = 3005 * ln(mo/mf)
1680/3005 = ln(mo/mf)
mo/mf=e^(1680/3005)
mo/mf=1.75
So they needed to carry 75% of the thing's weight in fuel! Or, put another way, they needed 42% of their total mass to be fuel. Wow, is that even possible?! Sure! Just bring along a little engine helper thingy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_...Service_Module
That's not weird at all. Again, go to your local air show; the SR71 has a mo/mf ratio of 2.83, and even the F22 has a ratio of 1.93. Hell, your car is around 1.05, i.e., not insignificant.
Ok, so how long do we have to burn to achieve our 1680 m/s? The lunar lander was about 15000 kg. That means we need 11250 kg of fuel. With a fuel ejection (burn) rate of 30kg/s...
11250/30=375s
Or just over 6 minutes.
In summary, I have no idea if we landed on the moon or not. But we sure as shit *could* do it if we wanted to.
That's the descent engine, not the ascent engine. Wikipedia lists ascent engine at 2220 m/secQuote:
Originally Posted by Amir Allam
You also list the F22's ratio of 1.93. Here's a picture of it
https://chivethebrigade.files.wordpr...gine-920-8.jpg
After you fix your data from the 3000 to 2220 m/sec what is the new mo/mf ratio needed from the engine required by the ascent module?
How much does that f22 engine weigh do you think, to be able to produce 1.9? Now consider they claim the dry weight of the ascent module was only 4000kg.
So where on this thing, do we find an engine capable of putting out that kind of thrust?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LM...tration_02.jpg
Nowhere.
also note only the top half of that thing is the ascent module.
Here is an F22 engine firing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71emUESjfZE
And here is the ascent module firing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Obd_jTO66-0
The idea that these are even close to the same is laughable.
In this image of the F22 engine you can see it's over 20 feet long
http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/f...=871&mode=view
The ascent module, including 2 astronauts, all the fuel, supplies, technical equipment, o2, everything they needed was only 12' x 14' x 13'.
Here is another good one... in this image you can see a little exhaust port under the ascent module that is supposed to be an engine exhaust. But where's the engine above it? Nowhere, that's where the astronauts were supposed to be.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missio...ages/lm_lg.gif
Here is another image showing the ascent module on the top half of the drawing. Note the little drawing of the guy standing in it for scale.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...inedrawing.png
And here is picture of a rocket capable of producing the thrust required:
http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/images/f22-02.jpg
worth noting the escape velocity of the moon in miles per hour is 5400 miles per hour. That's over 7 times the speed of sound.. mock 7.
It boggles my mind that people can look at all the video footage, physics data, and still come away thinking this is possible.
Blue pill is powerful voodoo.
Alright, but only because I'm avoiding doing actual work...
The F22 engine (Pratt & Whitney F119) produces 156kn of force. Badass. The Lunar Ascent Module Engine (we'll call it LAME from now on) produces... 16kn of force. Wamp wamp wamp. As you put it, the idea that they're remotely the same is laughable; LAME is about 10% as cool as the F119. So what gives?
Because the moon has no drag (atmosphere) and the gravity is 16% of Earth, you don't need a big huge rocket; you just need an efficient one that you can sustain. The gravitational force is only (1.6m/s^2 * 4000kg) 6.4kn, or 40% of LAME. LAME is only about 1/3 the size of the descent engine! Why? It only has to carry about 1/3 of the weight back. The F119 fires for many hours; LAME only fires for minutes.
Since you like pictures, here's one of the wimpy bastard compared to the descent and maneuvering engines:
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-350/i4-9.jpg
Again, I have no idea if Apollo 11 landed on the moon or not. I don't really care; it wouldn't be the first time the government lied to us, so it isn't an important proof-of-concept. Regardless, the idea that the landing is somehow scientifically impossible is just not correct.
It's "mach" but whatever.
After touching down the lunar module and its ascent engine never reached, and never needed to reach, the moon's EV. Just needed to hit a high enough orbit to link with the command module. Equations are then completely different for the command module to move into an earth intercept trajectory (different craft, and one that never decelerated from orbital velocity). The lunar module itself was ditched in orbit around the moon. Whether or not its engines could have driven it to escape velocity is irrelevant, though obviously with no atmospheric resistance it could be done, given the right amount of fuel. In the event figuring out the fuel reserves required for all phases *was* dicey. Lunar module didn't carry enough for much of a failsafe if things went badly on the ascent, although there was a planned contingency operation in case the lunar module didn't make it into as high an orbit as they hoped. Eleven and half miles was the cutoff — the minimum altitude to which the command module could have descended to link with the lander. Any less and NASA was prepared to leave two corpses on the moon. That was always an outside possibility. The math looked right at the outset but they were playing with close margins, and it's fully appropriate to be impressed at how difficult the whole operation was.
Jets aren't rockets (though trying to visually compare them certainly is totes adorbs). Most of the mass in a jet engine is the turbine/compressor system. Generally makes it a lot more efficient than a rocket in the long run, given an atmosphere, because you can use outside air instead of carrying an oxidative fuel source. It does mean that a jet engine by itself will be far bigger and heavier per unit of thrust produced than a rocket, though.
I used to know James Irwin (Apollo 15), before he died. I was just a kid, but he inspired me pretty profoundly. FWIW he had some permanent physiological issues from overheating in his EVA suit. (I know, I know, clearly a paid shill... immensely cool beans.)
Jesus Christ.
I'm never going to post anything positive again.
Hahaha NDT is a boss, man.