[Split]Moon hoaxes - split from: Mars Voyage too Soon?

[sts60]

I'm sincerely hoping to getting around to reading up on ALSEP, but I was genuinely (honestly!) hoping that Corsair would help me short-circuit it. Whilst I'm interested in this debate I don't relish the thought of reading up on an aspect that I don't believe has been disputed before only to find that it still leaves the door open. So, maybe you'd care to direct me to the specific aspects of ALSEP that you believe affords the necessary proof beyond reasonable doubt that man has walked on the Moon. If you feel you've tried to do that already please accept my apologies, but if you could just direct me to the relevant post(s) and part(s) thereof and/or links therefrom I would appreciate that. Thanks

Sure, no problem. In post 70, you said:

With great respect, I hope you will understand when I say that what you've written here, and in your Post #144, offers absolutely no proof, certainly to a lay-person, that man has actually walked on the Moon, UNLESS, of course, it can be shown without any doubt that the ALSEP packages could only be transmitting data from the surface of the Moon or that there are indeed redundant ALSEP packages sitting on the surface of the Moon, AND that it would be impossible to deploy the ALSEP packages from an un-manned mission. Can those all be shown, without any doubt, to be the case?

In post 85, I addressed these points as follows:
1. Signals received from the surface of the Moon can't be faked by satellites, aircraft, etc.
2. Transmissions were received from the 5 ALSEPs at tracking stations worldwide, and the signal characteristics and telemetry itself provide unique identification.
3. The ALSEP packages were designed from the start to be deployed by hand and required mobility and dexterity beyond the capability of robotics to deploy, connect, and arm.
I suggested possible ways to fake these items and sketched the information and evidence required to support such faking. I pointed out that in the absence of specific details and evidence for such faking, the ALSEP program stands as the only reasonable and supported explanation. I also pointed out that there's no such thing as "absolute proof", only proving beyond a reasonable doubt.

In posts 175 and 179, you seemed to suggest radio signals (presumably with fake ALSEP telemetry) bounced off the Moon as a possible way to fake (1) and (2) and bypass (3).

In post 192, I pointed out that signals simply bounced off the Moon wouldn't work; that an active "relay" unit on the Moon would be required. But this scenario opens up a whole new can of worms. I pointed out some of the additional requirements for faking such a scenario, and reiterated that without a specific account of how such a system could be reliably faked, and specific evidence for such a fake, there was no reason to entertain the notion that such a fake actually occurred.

In post 285, I provided links to online resources where one can actually plot and download the ALSEP data - no loading up old tapes or dusting off that microfiche viewer needed! - as well as data from many other missions. I commented on the hardware and paperwork necessary for a fake "relay" program. (Oy! the paperwork! As a practicing space engineer for >15 years, I am painfully familiar with the paperwork.) I also alluded to the continuing usefulness of the Apollo experience in my line of work.

In post 291, I pointed out that the difficulty of soft-landing a fake ALSEP relay station was not in and of itself an objection to such a scenario. I revisited the things that would have to be faked to enable such a scenario: basically, a program lasting over a decade that literally reached around the world, and good enough to fool not only the scientists and engineers of the time but also those of the future (going on four decades now) - a program of which not a trace, not even a posthumous confession, has ever been seen.

I hope this summarizes clearly the path I've been traveling over this thread, namely:
A. You suggested criteria by which ALSEP could be considered "proof".
B. I indicated how the criteria are satisfied, how they could conceivably be faked, and discussed what would be required to support such claims.
C. There's no "proof without a doubt", but, in the absence of specific accounts of how the fake could be done and specific evidence for it, then beyond a reasonable doubt ALSEP stands as the only reasonable and supported account.

 

[Southwind17]

Yea, so what? Don't you think that the engineers had that figured out?
The space suits had several layers of insulation and was air tight.
And the astronauts had a undergarment that had tubes of temperature regulated fluid that kept the astronauts within a safe temerature range.

I'm not alluding to the space suits; they were, I assume, designed from basics specifically with the missions in mind. Many other aspects weren't, though.

 

[Southwind17]

This is an important point. Even if this whole thing was a hoax, in order to keep the people who were aware of it to a minimum, WORKING versions of equipment would have to be delivered.

Why would anybody think that those who designed, manufactured, and inspected the space suits weren't aware of the fluctuations of temperatures on the surface of the moon? Can you imagine if a prop suit was delivered to the engineers from the suppliers? One would think that they would have noticed that this suit they requested was obviously inadequate.

This goes for pretty much every single piece of equipment manufactured to work on the surface of the moon. Every single one would have had to actually work even if it wasn't to be used on the moon, otherwise the number of people 'in on it' goes up to ridiculous levels.

This typifies the misconceived views of many anti-Apollo CTs, namely that the alleged conspiracy was perpetrated from the get go. What I see as a more plausible possibility derives from an attempt by NASA to fulfil the Apollo objective as planned, but then, on the discovery and realization that certain technological obstacles are far greater than envisaged, recognizing the need to be seen to have succeeded, particularly in the context of the political race possibly hovering on the verge of being lost. I don't doubt for one milli-second that the Apollo program was absolutely genuine, except for the very last part.

 

[sts60]

I'm sincerely hoping to getting around to reading up on ALSEP, but I was genuinely (honestly!) hoping that Corsair would help me short-circuit it. Whilst I'm interested in this debate I don't relish the thought of reading up on an aspect that I don't believe has been disputed before only to find that it still leaves the door open. So, maybe you'd care to direct me to the specific aspects of ALSEP that you believe affords the necessary proof beyond reasonable doubt that man has walked on the Moon.

Just one note in addition to my prior post:
There are a lot of other statements you've made regarding Apollo which I'd be interested in discussing in some detail. (Generally, this excludes interpretation of photographs; neither of us is a photo analyst, and there are plenty of other people here weighing in such issues.) I've refrained from this because I want to focus on actually resolving the ALSEP questions you've asked.

Now, I'm not trying to rush you - I know it's one against many in this thread, and that you're not familiar with the ALSEP program - but without significant commentary from you in a reasonable timeframe, I will consider that your challenges to the reality of the ALSEP program - which required deployment by astronauts on the Moon - fail for lack of support, and move on.

 

[Shrinker]

What I see as a more plausible possibility derives from an attempt by NASA to fulfil the Apollo objective as planned, but then, on the discovery and realization that certain technological obstacles are far greater than envisaged...

It was the gloves thing wasn't it? Gloves don't work in space. They must have been gutted.

 

[PixyMisa]

I'm not alluding to the space suits; they were, I assume, designed from basics specifically with the missions in mind. Many other aspects weren't, though.

What aspects? Specifically.

 

[PixyMisa]

This typifies the misconceived views of many anti-Apollo CTs, namely that the alleged conspiracy was perpetrated from the get go. What I see as a more plausible possibility derives from an attempt by NASA to fulfil the Apollo objective as planned, but then, on the discovery and realization that certain technological obstacles are far greater than envisaged, recognizing the need to be seen to have succeeded, particularly in the context of the political race possibly hovering on the verge of being lost. I don't doubt for one milli-second that the Apollo program was absolutely genuine, except for the very last part.

What very last part? Specifically.

 

[technoextreme]

This typifies the misconceived views of many anti-Apollo CTs, namely that the alleged conspiracy was perpetrated from the get go. What I see as a more plausible possibility derives from an attempt by NASA to fulfil the Apollo objective as planned, but then, on the discovery and realization that certain technological obstacles

Really what were those so I can rip into these idiotic misconceptions.

 

[Southwind17]

It's not that your posts are cloaked. Southwind is ignoring questions. He still hasn't answered my questions concerning the "famous" picture

I'm sorry for keeping you waiting uruk, that would be these questions, I guess:

Why would it not be a possibility? The helmet is a highly specular reflective surface that is capable of creating hotspots on another surface. Can you really tell just by looking at the hotspot that the source is the reflection from the helmet, the light reflecting from Armstrong's white suit, or an artificial light source?

For the purpose of offering you an answer, I'm afraid I'll have to resort to theory and hypothesis, which you know from my other posts I'm generally averse to, but I don't think you're truly expecting a conclusive response from me, are you, given that I'm actually responding to theory and hypothesis myself?

For the ease of reference for all concerned I'll post the photo in question here.

Now, I doubt that what would essentially be a point light generated by the Sun reflecting off a concave visor would cause a hotspot the full height of Aldrin's boot heel, which is also clearly concave in all directions, including vertically. In order to generate a hotspot for the full height of the heel the light source would have to more of a 'floodlight'. I also notice that Aldrin's right heel appears to be somewhat higher than the height of the camera (unless Armstrong fortuitously chanced, or chose, to stand on higher ground, again!). The part of the hotspot reflecting off the upper part of Aldrin's heel would, therefore, need to be reflecting a light source shining somewhat higher than the heel, i.e. reflecting the light downwards towards the camera.

As for Armstrong's spacesuit being a possible source, I don't see how the fabric from which the spacesuits were made could reflect light at an intensity that would register as a hotspot of the intensity that we see reflecting from Aldrin's heel. If the spacesuits were made from the same foil-looking material that we see on the LM then that would be different.

On that note, it's quite hard to tell for sure, but it appears to me that the said gold 'foil' on the area to the right of the ladder is only reflecting light from the faces that are generally facing upwards, and not downwards, as would be expected from the 'Moon as a reflective surface' explanation. This also seems to be the case on the landing strut. The surface which is angled upwards facing the 'sky', but in shadow, appears to be reflecting far more light than the side of the same strut which is essentially facing the illuminated lunar surface beneath the LM. In fact, from the observing position of the camera, the latter would seem to be affording a very good reflective angle for the light being reflected off the surface of the Moon, whereas the former would appear to be reflecting just black 'sky'.

Professional photographers shooting portraitures outside on bright but overcast days invariably use fill-in light from hand-held directional reflectors in preference to artificial light for more accurate colour rendering. It seems implausible to me that a still photographer could be expected to obtain a near-perfect exposure within the exit bay of the LM, as we see on the photo, particularly given where Aldrin is positioned, without demanding some form of directional fill-in reflector (or artificial light source) in addition to the Moon's surface (which is 'angled' completely the 'wrong' way for good effect).

Groves did say that the source of the light was 30cm to the right of the camera. The camera was at chest height. So what could be 30cm to the right of a chest mounted camera? Hmmmm.

Oh, so you're prepared to accept Groves' analysis when it suits. Hmmmm! In any event, your explanation is tautological. Groves' principal claim is that the camera was NOT chest mounted, hence the anomaly. You can't eat your cake and have it too, you know!

So what is the difference between a "probablity" and "possibility"? I did not say "has to be" or "most definitly is". What I am pretty certain of is that it is not an artificial light source.

A 'probability' is a measure of the likelihood of an event occurring. A 'possibility' is simply an acknowledgement that an event could occur at all. Unless I'm mistaken, if an event will 'probably' occur, then it must have a greater than 50% chance; let's say 51% for argument's sake. I think you will agree, now, that there's a fundamental difference between a 51% chance of something being correct and a 0.000000000000000001% chance!

But it seems quite a bit less than you or Dr. Groves. Both you and he have been overlooking some pretty basic concepts and behaiviours of light.
You still haven't answered me on why the shadows on picture 5903 are on the upper surfaceses of Aldrin's suit.
Where could that source of light be coming from if Aldrin is standing on the ground?

Care to answer? Or are going to continue to ignore the question?

I need a little more time than I have now to study this, but I'll get back to you on it very soon.

 

[Southwind17]

It's not that your posts are cloaked. Southwind is ignoring questions. He still hasn't answered my questions concerning the "famous" picture

Why would it not be a possibility? The helmet is a highly specular reflective surface that is capable of creating hotspots on another surface. Can you really tell just by looking at the hotspot that the source is the reflection from the helmet, the light reflecting from Armstrong's white suit, or an artificial light source?

Groves did say that the source of the light was 30cm to the right of the camera. The camera was at chest height. So what could be 30cm to the right of a chest mounted camera? Hmmmm.


So what is the difference between a "probablity" and "possibility"? I did not say "has to be" or "most definitly is". What I am pretty certain of is that it is not an artificial light source.


But it seems quite a bit less than you or Dr. Groves. Both you and he have been overlooking some pretty basic concepts and behaiviours of light.
You still haven't answered me on why the shadows on picture 5903 are on the upper surfaceses of Aldrin's suit.
Where could that source of light be coming from if Aldrin is standing on the ground?

Care to answer? Or are going to continue to ignore the question?




Yep. I wonder what that says about Groves?

Just one note in addition to my prior post:
There are a lot of other statements you've made regarding Apollo which I'd be interested in discussing in some detail. (Generally, this excludes interpretation of photographs; neither of us is a photo analyst, and there are plenty of other people here weighing in such issues.) I've refrained from this because I want to focus on actually resolving the ALSEP questions you've asked.

Now, I'm not trying to rush you - I know it's one against many in this thread, and that you're not familiar with the ALSEP program - but without significant commentary from you in a reasonable timeframe, I will consider that your challenges to the reality of the ALSEP program - which required deployment by astronauts on the Moon - fail for lack of support, and move on.

OK, I'll turn my attention to ALSEP as soon as I get back on line and finish my response to uruk (shouldn't take too long!)

 

[technoextreme]

Now, I doubt that what would essentially be a point light generated by the Sun reflecting off a concave visor would cause a hotspot the full height of Aldrin's boot heel, which is also clearly concave in all directions, including vertically. In order to generate a hotspot for the full height of the heel the light source would have to more of a 'floodlight'. I also notice that Aldrin's right heel appears to be somewhat higher than the height of the camera (unless Armstrong fortuitously chanced, or chose, to stand on higher ground, again!). The part of the hotspot reflecting off the upper part of Aldrin's heel would, therefore, need to be reflecting a light source shining somewhat higher than the heel, i.e. reflecting the light downwards towards the camera.

Ahhh yes. The sun is not a point source of light. It's more like a spherical light bulb.

 

[Mashuna]

Gee, sense at last. Of course, if it were to be shown that the 'consistent' plausible explanation does not account for the observed effects, then a further possible consistent plausible explanation would become necessary.

But you haven't shown that the consistent plausible explanation does not account for the observed effects. You've just given an opinion from your own incredulity.

Now, I doubt that what would essentially be a point light generated by the Sun reflecting off a concave visor would cause a hotspot the full height of Aldrin's boot heel, which is also clearly concave in all directions, including vertically. In order to generate a hotspot for the full height of the heel the light source would have to more of a 'floodlight'. I also notice that Aldrin's right heel appears to be somewhat higher than the height of the camera (unless Armstrong fortuitously chanced, or chose, to stand on higher ground, again!). The part of the hotspot reflecting off the upper part of Aldrin's heel would, therefore, need to be reflecting a light source shining somewhat higher than the heel, i.e. reflecting the light downwards towards the camera.

As for Armstrong's spacesuit being a possible source, I don't see how the fabric from which the spacesuits were made could reflect light at an intensity that would register as a hotspot of the intensity that we see reflecting from Aldrin's heel. If the spacesuits were made from the same foil-looking material that we see on the LM then that would be different.

On that note, it's quite hard to tell for sure, but it appears to me that the said gold 'foil' on the area to the right of the ladder is only reflecting light from the faces that are generally facing upwards, and not downwards, as would be expected from the 'Moon as a reflective surface' explanation. This also seems to be the case on the landing strut. The surface which is angled upwards facing the 'sky', but in shadow, appears to be reflecting far more light than the side of the same strut which is essentially facing the illuminated lunar surface beneath the LM. In fact, from the observing position of the camera, the latter would seem to be affording a very good reflective angle for the light being reflected off the surface of the Moon, whereas the former would appear to be reflecting just black 'sky'.

Professional photographers shooting portraitures outside on bright but overcast days invariably use fill-in light from hand-held directional reflectors in preference to artificial light for more accurate colour rendering. It seems implausible to me that a still photographer could be expected to obtain a near-perfect exposure within the exit bay of the LM, as we see on the photo, particularly given where Aldrin is positioned, without demanding some form of directional fill-in reflector (or artificial light source) in addition to the Moon's surface (which is 'angled' completely the 'wrong' way for good effect).

 

[Shrinker]

I'm sorry for keeping you waiting uruk, that would be these questions, I guess:


For the purpose of offering you an answer, I'm afraid I'll have to resort to theory and hypothesis, which you know from my other posts I'm generally averse to, but I don't think you're truly expecting a conclusive response from me, are you, given that I'm actually responding to theory and hypothesis myself?

For the ease of reference for all concerned I'll post the photo in question here.

Now, I doubt that what would essentially be a point light generated by the Sun reflecting off a concave visor would cause a hotspot the full height of Aldrin's boot heel, which is also clearly concave in all directions, including vertically. In order to generate a hotspot for the full height of the heel the light source would have to more of a 'floodlight'. I also notice that Aldrin's right heel appears to be somewhat higher than the height of the camera (unless Armstrong fortuitously chanced, or chose, to stand on higher ground, again!). The part of the hotspot reflecting off the upper part of Aldrin's heel would, therefore, need to be reflecting a light source shining somewhat higher than the heel, i.e. reflecting the light downwards towards the camera.

Not true. Get concave and convex right first. Second maybe the boot has anisotropic reflectivity. In fact, given the shape of the highlight it almost certainly does. Read up on the subject here. With an anisotropic reflection like this it is difficult if not impossible to tell if the lightsource is higher or lower than the camera. Rewrite your analysis to rule out anisotropic reflections.

As for Armstrong's spacesuit being a possible source, I don't see how the fabric from which the spacesuits were made could reflect light at an intensity that would register as a hotspot of the intensity that we see reflecting from Aldrin's heel. If the spacesuits were made from the same foil-looking material that we see on the LM then that would be different.

How shiny are the boots? they look brand new. How have you ruled out the reflection of the white suit without working out how shiny the boots are? Look at this picture here. You can see painted white steps reflected in the boots. And the steps aren't even lit by raw lunar sunlight.

On that note, it's quite hard to tell for sure, but it appears to me that the said gold 'foil' on the area to the right of the ladder is only reflecting light from the faces that are generally facing upwards, and not downwards, as would be expected from the 'Moon as a reflective surface' explanation. This also seems to be the case on the landing strut. The surface which is angled upwards facing the 'sky', but in shadow, appears to be reflecting far more light than the side of the same strut which is essentially facing the illuminated lunar surface beneath the LM. In fact, from the observing position of the camera, the latter would seem to be affording a very good reflective angle for the light being reflected off the surface of the Moon, whereas the former would appear to be reflecting just black 'sky'.

It's hard to tell, so you've not exactly broken the reasonable doubt barrier.

Professional photographers shooting portraitures outside on bright but overcast days invariably use fill-in light from hand-held directional reflectors in preference to artificial light for more accurate colour rendering. It seems implausible to me that a still photographer could be expected to obtain a near-perfect exposure within the exit bay of the LM, as we see on the photo, particularly given where Aldrin is positioned, without demanding some form of directional fill-in reflector (or artificial light source) in addition to the Moon's surface (which is 'angled' completely the 'wrong' way for good effect).

The moons surface is not angled the wrong way - it provides light from a complete hemisphere below the astronaut. Regarding exposure on the moon there are only two possible lighting conditions - full sunlight or shadow filled in from below. Is it hard to imagine they pre set these exposures before launch?

Oh, so you're prepared to accept Groves' analysis when it suits. Hmmmm! In any event, your explanation is tautological. Groves' principal claim is that the camera was NOT chest mounted, hence the anomaly. You can't eat your cake and have it too, you know!



A 'probability' is a measure of the likelihood of an event occurring. A 'possibility' is simply an acknowledgement that an event could occur at all. Unless I'm mistaken, if an event will 'probably' occur, then it must have a greater than 50% chance; let's say 51% for argument's sake. I think you will agree, now, that there's a fundamental difference between a 51% chance of something being correct and a 0.000000000000000001% chance!



I need a little more time than I have now to study this, but I'll get back to you on it very soon.

 

[PixyMisa]

Oh, so you're prepared to accept Groves' analysis when it suits.

No. Just that even Groves trips up and says something true now and then.

 

[sts60]

It seems implausible to me that a still photographer could be expected to obtain a near-perfect exposure within the exit bay of the LM, as we see on the photo, particularly given where Aldrin is positioned, without demanding some form of directional fill-in reflector (or artificial light source) in addition to the Moon's surface (which is 'angled' completely the 'wrong' way for good effect).

Just a general note - the lunar lighting conditions had been explored by the Surveyor landers, and the astronauts had been trained extensively in using a limited set of exposure settings to cover various conditions. (IIRC, they also used wrist checklists as aids.) Plus, the film could be pushed, dodged, etc., in the darkroom to obtain best results - a completely normal part of the photographic process. Again, these are general comments - not meant to address any particular statement.
OK, I'll turn my attention to ALSEP as soon as I get back on line and finish my response to uruk (shouldn't take too long!)
OK.

 

[Hellbound]

So, if one piece of evidence in the OJ trial had happened to have been a cop observing OJ sticking the knife into his victims, taking account of all of the other evidence that served to clear him, what would your verdict have been?

My verdict would already have been guilty, but that's because of the abundance of other evidence. It';s not a fair analogy. You had a lot of conflicting evidence in the OJ trial.

A better example would be the Columbine shooting. Considering all the video, witness statements, and other information pointing to the shooters...your position is that because one person who claims to have seem someone differnet on one piece of video evidence, it proves that it was really a government plot.

Not quite the same situations. You aren't providing different interpretations for other evidence. You're taking a single piece of evidence, interpreting it to fit your pre-conception, then claiming that every other piece of evidenc ethat supports the real story is faked, to such a degree that experts and scientists have been fooled for over 40 years.

Imagine (if you can!), just for a moment, that the Aldrin photo were shown beyond all reasonable doubt to be a fake (or at best 'doctored' for more than mere 'presentation'), what would your reaction be?

My first suspicion was that this photo was created specificically for the publicity. However, there is more than enough other evidence to believe that they walked on the moon, even if I toss this photo out.

I suggest you pay more attention. I never 'insisted' that Corsair do any such thing. Corsair strongly indicated a belief that ALSEP affords proof, on its own, beyond all reasonable doubt that man walked on the Moon. When I sought clarification he/she persisted to avoid the question because he/she realized where it would lead (either that or he/she really is lacking in comprehension to the extent he/she seemed to display). All your comment here shows is that you have no idea what it is that I'm arguing.

You also can't read. No, she answered your question, then went on to provide additional information. For whatever insanity passes for reason in your head, you insisted she make a single word post.

However, it cahnges nothing. Even if she were focusing only on ALSEP, it's still wrong (sorry Corsair). Focusing on a single piece of evidence, to the exclusion of others, is a good way to come up with the wrong conclusion. The OJ trial and the gloves, for example. The "NWO" and the Rockefeller quote. Sylvia Browne and the Montel Williams show. The moon and this photo.

I knwo precisely what you are arguing, and it's invalid. You still haven't addressed how your theory better expalins all the available evidence. IN fact, your ignorance of many aspects (such as ALSEP) show that not only did you not have explanations in your thoery for all the evidence, you had not even examined a large portion of it, nor even made enough of an effort to know that it existed! You have no clue as to what effect things like the thermal temperature differentials would affect them, because you don't even seem to understand how they work! (Here's a hint, the thermal differences will be more pronounced in open space than on the surface of the moon...I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine why). Yet you claim to have "figured it out".

Yeah, right.

Talk to me when you have something. Essentially, you say because one photo might be faked, then it necessarily means everything was, even the things you don't know about. Your tap-dancing about remote probes and automated radio repeaters is nothign more than ad hoc rationalization with no supporting evidence, done to "explain away" the anomolous data that does not fit with your one photograph.

You have nothing. You have your own bias and the word of an "expert". You have argument from ignroance, circular reasoning, ad hoc reasoning, appeal to authority, and a touch of ad hominem going, with nothing better than a very, very, very small amount or weak circumstancial evidence to back it up, and that only if we ignore the appeal to authority and accept Groves a valid expert. Everything else you've offered have been "what if" scenarios. "What of D-O-G really spelled cat?" Speculation is all well and good, but don't confused it with evidence, and don't think it proves anything. You fall into the classic CT trap of thinking "If I can imagine it, it must be possible" and "If I think it could be done that way, it likely was". You confuse possibility with probability.

Now, have you any actual data? Can you post the specifics of the photo analysis? Do you have any other data to support your alternative theory? How does your theory explain all the other data, such as the fact that thermal stresses weren't a problem in orbit, or of ALSEP packages, or why the thousands of people working on the technology and support didn't know anything was wrong?

Didn't think so.

Come back when you have a raging clue.

 

[phunk]

Wikipedia has the Descent Module DPS thrust specified as 45.04kN, throttleable to 4.56kN (the DM mass was 10,334kg). It has the Ascent Module APS thrust specified as 15.6kN (the AM mass was 4,670kg). Clearly, 15.6kN is necessary to overcome the Moon's gravitational pull and 4.56kN is the minimum thrust applied during the descent stage. 15.6/4.56=3.42. Unless I'm mistaken (could be!), you're saying that 3.42 (let's call it 4!) 'very wide' leaf blowers would provide sufficient thrust to lift the 4,670kg ascent-stage module + two astronauts + rock samples into Moon orbit. Is that right?!

He said the thrust per unit area. If a leaf blower has 10 square inches or so at its exhaust, and the engine had 1700, you'd need 170 leaf blowers to match the overall thrust, if they both put out the same thrust per area ratio.

The descent engine had an area of roughly 1700 square inches, and at landing, was putting out around 2600 lbs of thrust. That's around 1.5psi. And once the exhaust left the constraints of the engine bell, it spread horizontally, reducing the psi of the exhaust plume even further before it hit the ground.

 

[Southwind17]

The tea lady was with the support team. Cape Canaveral, Houston, and so on. The astronauts had to supply their own tea.

Thank you.

Sigh... There wasn't one. There were only two people on the moon each time and (at least once) someone operating a remote camera from Earth. Very telling you would concentrate on the "tea lady" though.

Very telling my reason for 'concentrating on the tea lady' is lost on you, more like!

 

[Southwind17]

Southwind, what is your reference to temperature gradients supposed to signify?

Remember that people have worked in space, in space suits both more primitive and more advanced than the Apollo suits, for years before and decades after Apollo. Temperature is a solved problem.

Who said anything about space suits?

The same as it would be in Earth orbit. You know, where the Mercury and Gemini and Shuttle missions go.

Which would be what, exactly?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Thank you.



Very telling my reason for 'concentrating on the tea lady' is lost on you, more like!

are you trying to claim that since only 2 people were required "on-location" to film the scenes on the moon, only 2 people would be required to fake the whole thing?