I couldn't find any specific dimensions on the segments of the Apollo 17 module but the whole thing is 10'7" tall. With that in mind, can anyone give me an estimate as to how fast it's going?
>>16533550People actually believe this thunderbirds bs ahahah
>>16533560I did some napkin math and if each segment is 5' tall, it was moving at about 10 feet second, or 6 miles per hourThe escape velocity of the moon is 1.4 miles per *second*
>>16533563Insane bro, it would like need a whole ascent stage with 16kN of thrust burning for nearly 8 minutes to get to that speed.That's impossible.
>>16533563>>16533589IIRC because of the moons small circumference, low gravity and lack of an atmosphere the Apollo CSM was able to dip down to an orbital perigree of just 12 miles to rendezvous with the lunar ascent module. I believe the ascent engine only had a 90 second burn time.
>>16533601At the speed shown in OP it would take 2 hours to go that 12 miles
>>16533604I was wrong about the burn time, it was 465 seconds.
>>16533607Also half of the total liftoff mass of the ascent stage was propellant. Probably continued to gain velocity during burn.
>>16533563it's a good thing they didn't use the lander to return to earth, then
>>16533610Top speed was also 2000 meters per second so was also probably wrong about the 12 mile rendezvous as well. Probably should have fact checked before shitposting, lol. Ascent engine was also developed from the Agena engine, interesting read.
>>16533550the more pressing question should be "how did these guys not die from the noise of the engine rupturing their lungs ?" not only that but one of them had time to play some classical music on a cassette player. look it up : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TCrm9SK9s4&t=460s the ascent engine was in the middle of the cabin inside a cylinder poking through the floor. picrel.this thing would have shaked the cabin and kill them. and before you tell me " it's in a VACOOM ! there is no sound because the VACOOM does not permit sound propagation! " the engine is bolted to the hull. the vibration can only go either in the exhaust gas or in the hull. when the astronauts use hammers to chip at rocks, the sound can be heard by their helmet microphones. they say that the sound travelled through the suit fabric up the sleeve to the microphone on their chin/ if that is true then we should also expect the engine noise to travel through the hull and shake their brains out through the nose. so either sound can travel through a solid to reach a microphone or it can't ! Apolloids have to pick one.
>>16533651i'll try to reason on your level of retardation:the cccp would have never let the us live it down if they thought the landing was fake
>>16533651that's it guys, I guess it was faked, this guy really knows what he's talking about and isn't a bozo that likes to pontificate out his ass about stuff he knows nothing about
>>16533681IT'S DA SEESEEPEE ! Implying they are not on the same team and implying they even had the tech to figure out that it didn't happen
>>16533690typical appeal to authority" YOU DON'T HAVE A PEE-AGE-DEE !! so yu can't possibly have an argument! "
>>16533690so tell us science man, why was the engine inaudible AND invisible ? the plume can't be seen despite being on a black background.maybe nasa just has ayylmao antigravitics ?? the nitrogen tetraoxide left unconbusted, and the evaporating ablative carbon nozzle should be glowing orange, but I'm just a dumb non-scientist, what do i know
>>16533700The acent engine ran at a very low chamber pressure of 120 psi, was fixed, no gimballing, and pressure fed, no turbopumps. It was just a slow hisssss of transparent hypergolic mixed nitrogen oxides exhaust lofting a featherweight module in 1/6 earth gravity with zero atmospheric drag.
>>16533681What an incredibly moronic thing lemmings keep repeating. The Soviet Union had a pitiful amount of soft power compared to the US, they had Pravda while the US controls the biggest mainstream media channels in the world. Even if the Soviet Union wanted to say something they would've been laughed at exactly how whatever Russia says nowadays gets shut down as a conspiracy or a lie on western MSM and gets almost no penetration in the West. Also, when the alleged moon landing happened the US and the Soviet Union were in relatively good terms where the USSR was buying a lot of US grain at a discount price, so there could've also been a deal like ''don't say shit and we keep selling you grain for cheap''
>>16533733exactly like the shuttle
>>16533733>nasa video of the engine glowing like the sun exactly like any other hypergolic engine > science bro : it's transparent > you can't be for real
>>16533604>>16533610Kek looks like somebody got filtered by accelerated motion
>>16533607Typical globetard, changing science when he's exposed.
>>16533550you Yankees were never even on the Moonso then however fast they pulled it up on the Hollywood set
>>16533700>>16533780https://moonhoaxdebunked.blogspot.com/2017/07/612-why-is-there-no-exhaust-from-lms.htmlascent was tiny. why would it be noisy? and you guys do realize that the ascent stage was accelerating the whole time right? you cant just look at a few seconds of lift off footage and know how fast it was going for the entire flight.this anon is correct >>16533733
>>16533651dude, if you thought of that dont you thing a group of professional emgineers 24/7 on the program could have thought of that? who knows, they might have used the novelty of dampeners
>>16533700maybe the engine was not on full throttle. maybe not even on.if I had to design the ascent I would give an initial boost to just clear from the ground, because at first the module might not be pointing in the right direction, since no one could predict the slopes on which the landing would happen. then, after the initial boost, with engines off or at the lowest throttle, it would orient itself as necessary, and finally start the ascending burn with full throttle.in essence, initial boost just clear the ground, orient and then full throttle to ascend.in the video you would only see the ground clearing
>>16533927ascent engine was not throttleable nor was it turned off once the burn began. too risky in case it wouldn't relight. the simple fact is that it was a tiny little rocket that was just powerful enough to get the stage off the surface at launch mass and was operating in vacuum
>>16533929fair enough, lol
>>16533930this is just one more silly little point that hoaxers think is so important (like shadows, which is another one they are always getting wrong) because they just dont know anything about the subject and will refuse to learn about it once the initial hoax claim is accepted. Coupled with their total inability to admit fault about any single thing ever, and its a self sealing belief system.
heres a photo taken by one of the guys who was working on one aspect of the ascent engine development. He said that during testing in a vacuum chamber the engine would run almost completely transparently until, 6ms after ignition, the chamber lost vacuum and the plume became visible.http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum29/HTML/001652.html
>>16533941interesting, i guess i am debunked then
>>16534062you have educated yourself and may now repent of your previous errors before the rest of the class
>>16534088no, scientists are still fake and gaythe suit can't hold pressure because it's closed with zippers. zippers can't hold water, nevermind air. it can't protect the astronaut from fast protons of the solar wind, cosmic rays. and it can't stop micrometeors.
>>16534150you know that zips can be made with rubber seals built into them and that holding 4psi isn't that hard? the suits did have air loss too, but the supply carried was sufficient to replenish those losses if they stayed within defined limits. and the Apollo suit have several layers of kevlar type material to defend against the low end of possible impacts. the radiation is an issue but its not nearly so bad as the hoaxies like to make it out as. educate yourself some morehttps://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-predict-how-long-humans-can-survive-radiation-on-the-moon
>>16533604Bro what if like ..what if velocity could change over time? Haha just kidding that would be crazy!!
>>16533563>>16533601>>16533604>>16533607>>16533610Do you know the difference between velocity and acceleration and how they are related? Or does your knowledge of kinematics end at s = v*t?
>>16533761Go back to /b>>16533780The bell was recessed in the base of the ascent vehicle. Hyperbolic exhaust is transparent gaseous mixed oxides of nitrogen. The ascent module looks a bit wobbly at first because the rcs thrusters are having to do all the steering.
>>16534221>The ascent module looks a bit wobbly at first because the rcs thrusters are having to do all the steering.this is something the hoaxies never understand. iirc the LM ascent module was a little unbalanced at lift off so the auto pilot was fighting a bit of a swing between it's defined reference points for applying a correction to the angle. it was also starting the roll program to get it headed around the moon instead of just straight up and that slight oscillating movement is just how it worked. you can see it in other footage sometimes - it kind of gradually changes angle in little pulses instead of all at once.
>>16533550And who, may I ask, filmed this video?An astronaut who decided to stay on the Moon?Gimme a f*cking break, from that b*llsh*t!
>>16534440remote camera. amazing isn't it?
>>16534472How did it know to follow the Thunderbird s model?
>>16534511it was controlled by the same guy who had been controlling it during the entire mission. him and some colleagues planned a series of commands to be sent to the camera according to seconds after liftoff. a nice piece of work which finally paid off.
>>16533550I went to a Charles duke lecture once all he talked about was how he became an alcoholic after the moon landing
>>16534581i can understand it really. if its true in his case, ive kinds done the same on a much smaller scale. i set out to do certain things which i never thought i could do...but did them, somehow. i got what i wanted in nearly every way. Then i was able to just settle down and enjoy them.you know what? i got bored. i got a bit lazy, because after all, id expended so much effort getting here. having a drink helps you not notice that stuff so much. a few more drinks make you feel good again. rinse and repeat. but, if he did get that way for a while, he didn't stay that way did he....i know he didn't. and neither did i
>>16534472Ok, you win (that one).But the Moon landing is still a hoax.Plus in the video, the ascent isn't "smooth".There are a few "jerks" or "wobbles" in the ascent.Which makes things suspect.JFK was a Moon buff.And the Moon landing hoax was used to distract from, or compensate for, his assassination.
>>16534513How did it control it remotely from Earth with the level of technology of the 60s? Also you know there's delay between the moon and Earth
>>16534587Yea he is a great dude basically does charity work now. He showed us some moon rocks
>>16534588>There are a few "jerks" or "wobbles" in the ascent.see >>16534240>>16534591>How did it control it remotely from Earth with the level of technology of the 60s?with radio> Also you know there's delay between the moon and Earthwasn't done real time. they planned for the commands based on that delay and the predicted rate of ascent combined with the known distance of the camera from the launch pad. took them several weeks to work it out using a scale model and math, from what i read.look up Ed Fendell oral history, pages between 50 and 70 in the pdf
>>16534630I'm sold on the idea, that the Moon landing is a hoax.Thus there's nothing, that anyone can say or write, to change my mind.Plus I consider detailed or technical explanations of why the ascent module wobbled to be f*ck*ng b*llsh*t.Sorry, but I'm a "no nonsense" type of guy.I think, that life is too short to entertain lies.I also have an explanation of why the ascent module wobbled.Because the guys or ex-sailors who hoisted it up, on the Hollywood set, didn't synchronize their pulling.There are many problems with the official account.
>>16534804You think Hollywood wouldn’t have just redone the shot to not have a wobble?
>>16535011Maybe Hollywood filmed, or shot, the ascent numerous times, and the module wobbled in all of the shots. Then Hollywood got fed up, chose the best shot, and reasoned: "The commoners won't notice that slight wobbling."Plus maybe the module was hoisted up by machines, instead of persons. And Hollywood gave up trying to perfectly synchronize the hoisting, or pulling, performed by the machines.---The Moon has no atmosphere. The Moon "sky" should have been ablaze with stars.The USA only excels at military science, like nukes. No American was ever on the Moon. The USA should finally apologize to the whole world for lying about a Moon landing.
>>16535083Richard Hoagland adjusted colors on apollo mission images and claims to have found huge glass buildings that NASA is covering up. Of course, it is just the glass beads in the screen. But he is compelled to accept the official narrative and is only left with them being giant structures on the moon.
>>16533550https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19700024568/downloads/19700024568.pdf
>>16533941Y'all got anymore of these details about space race engineering stuff?
>>16533941There is something about old space bros hawking their paraphernalia on deep discount like a methed out hillbilly nazi. Their reddit brain must be working overtime to compartmentalize the situation.>why does noone want my space funkos>we lost stark fighting thanos>I suppose I can also sacrifice>I will sell it cheaper to spread science
>>16534804>there's nothing, that anyone can say or write, to change my mind.so why bother with you? you're just another cultist not interested in the truth
>>16534804>Thus there's nothing, that anyone can say or write, to change my mind.at least you admit that you are an irrational retard in a cult
>>16533691Anon, cccp means USSR
>>16536507>at least you admit that you are an irrational retard in a cultA lunatic who believes that men were on the Moon is worse.
>>16537757and yet all you hoaxies have is some retarded nonsense about shadows not looking right and the autopilot on the LM causing a slight oscillation during liftoff. Not really solid ground, know what i mean?
>>16534150crazy, because the dry suit i use for diving is sealed with a zip and can absolutely hold air, and water.
>>16538451they can't into sealed zips anon. thats how limited their life experiences are.
>>16538126"The LUNATIC! Moon Dry Gin immediately catches the eye with its mysterious appearance. The bottle is matte black, while the label is in white, grey and yellow. A dominant image shows a white astronaut suit with a face and the full moon reflected in its helmet."
>>16533550>firecracker explodes >slowly gets pulled up with a wire made me kek
>>16533651>the noise of the engineIts a cute itty bitty little thing. The chamber pressure was only 120 PSI so in one way it can't be much louder than using a blowgun on your air compressor at home "woosh woosh". Another way to look at it is it could only blow 3500 pounds of thrust downward, so its like a VERY small jet engine. Like smaller than a business jet, and if you want you can walk around the parking lot or maybe flightline at your local airport and hear a business jet engine ten times larger up close. You won't like it but it won't kill you either. It'll hurt your hearing if you listen to it for 40 hours a week for 40 years, but you'll be fine for a couple minutes. So an engine ten times smaller would be "meh" experience.You have to realize the ascent stage only weighs 10K pounds on the earth or a sixth that 1666 ish pounds on the moon due to lower gravity. About half the weight of the entire ascent stage was fuel so the acceleration must have been pretty brutal toward their feet, from 2 G at start to 4 G at the end.I predict the experience would be like an unusually brutal and unusually loud roller coaster although not shockingly worse. It would be noticeably the most brutal roller coaster on the planet if they simulated it here on the Earth; but would be unlikely to kill anyone.
>>16539421moonhoaxies can't deal with this
>>16539421OSHA safety on blowguns is 30 psi.
>>16534150>doesn't understand zippers>"now let me tell you about astrophysics"
>>16539722kind of undermines their legitimacy doesnt it
>>16538126Watch ''American Moon'', toward the end they show the photos allegedly taken on the moon to a bunch of the most famous photographers in Europe (Oliviero Toscani, Aldo Fallai, Peter Lindbergh, etc) who have no previous opinion whatsoever about the moon landings and they are all in agreement that the photos were obviously taken in a studio with reflectors
>>16540273ive watched it and they are wrong. 'reflectors' means multiple shadows, of which there are none. its funny you focus on 'reflectors' really, because one of the photos they use in that stupid movie is of aldrin coming down the ladder of the LM, and they get so worked up about how bright he is....even though theres armstrong stood in full sun wearing a giant reflective suit.but please, lets talk about what you find to be the most important photo these allegedly well known photographers talked about and the reasons. if you can remember anything.
>>16540284Yeah I'm going to trust you a nobody over the opinion of the best photographers in Europe. That's literally their job and they are all in agreement that it's beyond obvious they used reflectors in a studio, there are drop offs in lights all over the place, that shouldn't happen on the moon since it's illuminated uniformly by one source of light (the sun), that alone gives away the fact that they used reflectors, the shadows are also wrong in many pics, again those people are at the top of their game and do it for a living and had no opinion whatsoever about the moon landing being a hoax, that should give you pause
>>16540455>the best photographers in Europeyou checked that did you? or did you just accept the retarded lying movies claims, again?> drop offs in lights all over the placedid you ever bother to read the nasa document that the movie quotes a very tiny sentence from? if you did, you would remember that they write quite a bit about the effect of lunar regolith on the light reflecting from it. You see, regolith is like no dust or sand or gravel found on earth because it has never been erroded by wind or water. Do you think that might have an effect on photography on the moon? Do you think thats maybe why some photographers who know nothing about the subject might make a wrong judgement?>the shadows are also wrong in many pics,no, they aren't. if you're talking about the angles, that just comes down to people not being familiar with how shadows look in photos. > do it for a livingthey dont take photos on the moon for a living and therefore their uninformed opinions are not very useful. But you choose to accept what you want to accept. im absolutely certain you've done no more 'research' on the subject than watch this movie and maybe a few hoax believer youtube videos regurgitating the same errors.
>>16540455another thing i forgot. that shot they spend so much time on, the one with Aldrin coming down the ladder. dont make the mistake of looking at only adjusted popular version. find a scan of the original positive. you'll notice just how dim Aldrin is compared to in the 'pushed' version normal seen. All kinds of exposure adjustments can be made to brighten underexposed areas (unless they are totally dark).guess which version they showed to the photographers in the movie?dont let yourself be deceived by that movie anon. its absolutely rammed with misrepresentation, deliberate omissions and outright stupidity.
>>16540273They've been shown edited pictures, not the original ones
