I'm totally convinced now thanks. Nobody wants this shit to be more real than me but sometimes you have to pick through the crap to find a worm.
Get me the originals.Post them and point out the flaws. If you do what you say show us why they're fake, it should be easy for you.
This thing made out of plywood, foil and shower rods?My father-in-law helped to design and build the llm for Apollo 11-13. We went to the moon and are still there.
Where is the blast crater from the 10,000 pounds of rocket thrust?This thing made out of plywood, foil and shower rods?
It did not use 10,000lbs of thrust to land in on a satellite planet with only one sixth the gravity of earth. Also keep in mind that the cameras from that time period were not the high definition cameras that we have now.Where is the blast crater from the 10,000 pounds of rocket thrust?
I see, thanks for your response. The specs say 10000 lbs of thrust, do you think maybe they only used a few thousand pounds of thrust? That reminds me about the cameras. I don't think the cellulose film would have resisted the 260 degree temps on the moon when the sun is ''up''.It did not use 10,000lbs of thrust to land in on a satellite planet with only one sixth the gravity of earth. Also keep in mind that the cameras from that time period were not the high definition cameras that we have now.
the llm used liquid propellant thrusters and were able to be throttled back whereas the Saturn 5 main boosters were solid propellant engines that went full throttle from the moment of firing till thy ran out of fuelI see, thanks for your response. The specs say 10000 lbs of thrust, do you think maybe they only used a few thousand pounds of thrust? That reminds me about the cameras. I don't think the cellulose film would have resisted the 260 degree temps on the moon when the sun is ''up''.
Yes helium according to NASA's site. With 10,500 pounds of max thrust.the llm used liquid propellant thrusters and were able to be throttled back whereas the Saturn 5 main boosters were solid propellant engines that went full throttle from the moment of firing till thy ran out of fuel
No, not without believing in a global conspiracy theory without evidenceIs it possible that NASA faked the moon landing?
Hey Pad. If this is your first time posting in either this or the worst thread in RIU History (the flat earth thread), you are probably in for quite a shock. The mixture of delusion, ignorance, and arrogance is unlike anything I've ever witnessed. These threads have actually made me a little nauseous, but like the aftermath of a horrible car crash, it's difficult to look away. Facts, logic, and science mean nothing here. I'm looking forward to your reaction after your participation, it is a new low...No, not without believing in a global conspiracy theory without evidence
You can see the markings left by astronauts with technical enough equipment. The LRRR module left by the crew of Apollo 11 is absolute proof that we landed on the Moon in 1969
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment
lol threads like these and Shaggy's 9/11 thread are hilarious. I like to venture out into the absurd every once in a whileHey Pad. If this is your first time posting in either this or the worst thread in RIU History (the flat earth thread), you are probably in for quite a shock. The mixture of delusion, ignorance, and arrogance is unlike anything I've ever witnessed. These threads have actually made me a little nauseous, but like the aftermath of a horrible car crash, it's difficult to look away. Facts, logic, and science mean nothing here. I'm looking forward to your reaction after your participation, it is a new low...
Read the thread. These silly questions have been asked and answered.Where is the blast crater from the 10,000 pounds of rocket thrust?
Yeah... Gives 'Deez Nutz' a whole new meaning...Hey Pad. If this is your first time posting in either this or the worst thread in RIU History (the flat earth thread), you are probably in for quite a shock. The mixture of delusion, ignorance, and arrogance is unlike anything I've ever witnessed. These threads have actually made me a little nauseous, but like the aftermath of a horrible car crash, it's difficult to look away. Facts, logic, and science mean nothing here. I'm looking forward to your reaction after your participation, it is a new low...
Helium at high pressures (not forces) was used to pressurize the actual propellants. N2O4 and MMH iirc. Engine was throttlable form 10 to 60 per cent rated thrust. Kids these days.Yes helium according to NASA's site. With 10,500 pounds of max thrust.
So, where is the find dust that should be covering the entire lander at 1/6 gravity. The feet of the lander are pristine, I could eat off of them.Not according to math.
The engine bell was 63in across, with an area of roughly 3100 in sq. If the engine was producing 3000 ft-lbs of thrust nearing the lunar surface, that would make the pressure 1.03 ft-lb per sq inch, or a psi of 1.03. That's less pressure than the average human footprint.
The pictures do show bare lunar surface under the engine bell, and some scorching. The simple fact is that there was insufficient exhaust pressure to move much more than fine dust at touchdown.