24 May 08
Originally posted by shavixmirYou get that from the video? The problem with that analogy is the video does not go on very long, if it did, you would see the flapping die out because it had just been unfolded. besides, did you know that there are electrical discharge effects, for instance, when they tried to unfold a solar mirror, they found it impossible with present technology because of static electric charges held the thing together, a plus charge on one fold and because of that, a negative charge on the nearest flap, so they attracted to gether making unfolding difficult, so that kind of thing can happen to cloth in space too. But the main thing is they use a what, 10 second video of it flapping to make the point there was wind? Just doesn't fly. They would have a case if it were a one HOUR video. Get the differance?
Is there wind on the moon?
If not, how come the flag's waving?
24 May 08
Originally posted by shavixmirThis was expained by ITV news when they were covering the landing. People were wondering 'how can you put up a falg when there is no wind?'
Is there wind on the moon?
If not, how come the flag's waving?
The answer was to put a spring into the top edge of the flag! That's what you are observing as the flag is being placed into the Moon's ground - spring vibrations!
24 May 08
Originally posted by znshoAh, yer full of crap, prove it🙂
This was expained by ITV news when they were covering the landing. People were wondering 'how can you put up a falg when there is no wind?'
The answer was to put a spring into the top edge of the flag! That's what you are observing as the flag is being placed into the Moon's ground - spring vibrations!
26 May 08
Originally posted by shavixmirQuite clearly, whatever is under the Moon's surface is resistant to rocket thrusters!
If a rocket lands with approximately 3000 pounds of thrust on a sandy surface, wouldn't there be a sizeable crater underneath it. Especially visible after the rocket departs again?
27 May 08
Originally posted by shavixmirIt sounds like you are thinking that '3000 pounds' is aimed at the ground like a laser beam, a millimeter wide. The reality is, the force is spread out over quite a few square meters, lets say 10 square meters for grins. That puts that force now at 300 pounds per square meter.
If a rocket lands with approximately 3000 pounds of thrust on a sandy surface, wouldn't there be a sizeable crater underneath it. Especially visible after the rocket departs again?
Now if you look at your own self, lets say for grins, you can stand in an area of one square foot, so lets say you also weigh 300 pounds. Not saying you, just using the figure from above. Now you by yourself are exerting 300 pounds per square foot. Well, one square foot=144 square inches, so your somewhat rotund form is squishing the ground with 2 pounds per square inch. The ATMOSPHERE pushes down with 7 times that force, 14.7 pounds per square inch which is over one TON per square foot. So even that fat dude has a minimal crushing force on the ground. So lets convert that 10 square meters, that is 10.76 square feet per square meter, so 10 square meters=107 square feet.
3000/107 = 28 pounds per square foot. divide by 144, it comes out at .2 pounds per square inch. About 3 ounces per square inch. So you can see there wouldn't be much of a force to make any kind of crater, just blow away loose sand and dirt and as soon as a rock is encountered that would be the end of the crater making concept.
28 May 08
Originally posted by shavixmirAlso, only the top part of the lander launched back into orbit to rejoin the command module. So any (non-existant, as explaine above) crater would still be underneath the main part of the lander.
If a rocket lands with approximately 3000 pounds of thrust on a sandy surface, wouldn't there be a sizeable crater underneath it. Especially visible after the rocket departs again?
The following site has decent responses to most if not all of the denier's arguments.
http://www.clavius.org/
---Penguin.
29 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by PenguinNot so fast!! What about that shot of Neil Armstrong driving up to a Starbucks for a Mocha in his land rover? If you ask me, there is something fishy going on here.
The following site has decent responses to most if not all of the denier's arguments.
http://www.clavius.org/
---Penguin.[/b]