I am a Moonie

Audi, that car is staying firmly on the ground upon which the air is very dense. The atmosphere is at its densest near the surface of the earth where this car will operate. The wind drag slows its possible top speed by a significant degree. If that car was on the Moon, it could travel much faster than on the Earth.

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

Audi, that car is staying firmly on the ground upon which the air is very dense. The atmosphere is at its densest near the surface of the earth where this car will operate. The wind drag slows its possible top speed by a significant degree. If that car was on the Moon, it could travel much faster than on the Earth.

It's also a car, not an aeroplane. The air speed record, set in 2004, is 12,144km/h - 3.37 km/s.

Most importantly - and this is perhaps where people are going completely wrong - is that escape velocity as quoted is the speed which you would have to have if you were fired out of a cannon at the surface and had no further means of propulsion - the muzzle velocity of the cannon. All that is actually necessary to escape Earth's gravity is that you keep going at a speed that allows you to travel upwards.

If people still have difficulty understanding that, do the following - throw a ball very gently up from your hand. Do you imagine the ball is travelling at escape velocity? Clearly not - you have certainly not thrown the ball at the required 40,000 kmh. However, the ball still travels upwards, right? It has no more power, though, so it will soon fall back into your hand - but imagine if it had a very tiny rocket in it, sufficient to keep it going at that very slight speed. If that rocket had sufficient fuel, what stops the ball climbing all the way up to the top of the atmosphere and into space at that very slight speed? Nothing at all - after all, gravity gets weaker the higher you go.

You can reach space at any speed you like, as long as you can keep that speed up. All the Moon Lander had to do was be able to lift off at all, and keep doing that for as long as it took to get to orbit. Escape velocity is irrelevant.

Admittedly, this is rocket science.

ibis wrote:

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

Audi, that car is staying firmly on the ground upon which the air is very dense. The atmosphere is at its densest near the surface of the earth where this car will operate. The wind drag slows its possible top speed by a significant degree. If that car was on the Moon, it could travel much faster than on the Earth.

It's also a car, not an aeroplane. The air speed record, set in 2004, is 12,144km/h - 3.37 km/s.

Most importantly - and this is perhaps where people are going completely wrong - is that escape velocity as quoted is the speed which you would have to have if you were fired out of a cannon at the surface and had no further means of propulsion - the muzzle velocity of the cannon. All that is actually necessary to escape Earth's gravity is that you keep going at a speed that allows you to travel upwards.

Luckily I didn't pick that fastest ship example so. This makes sense to me now - the escape velocity. Do you know for how long the ball would have to be travelling at 2.3 km/s if it was designed to leave the moon ? A second or two or something ? Not that it matters as I think I understand that now. And the moon is a lot smaller than the earth too - one sixth the size so the rocket would have to be travelling a lot less too.

Quote :

If people still have difficulty understanding that, do the following - throw a ball very gently up from your hand. Do you imagine the ball is travelling at escape velocity? Clearly not - you have certainly not thrown the ball at the required 40,000 kmh. However, the ball still travels upwards, right? It has no more power, though, so it will soon fall back into your hand - but imagine if it had a very tiny rocket in it, sufficient to keep it going at that very slight speed. If that rocket had sufficient fuel, what stops the ball climbing all the way up to the top of the atmosphere and into space at that very slight speed? Nothing at all - after all, gravity gets weaker the higher you go.

You can reach space at any speed you like, as long as you can keep that speed up. All the Moon Lander had to do was be able to lift off at all, and keep doing that for as long as it took to get to orbit. Escape velocity is irrelevant.

Quote :

Admittedly, this is rocket science.

Auditor #9 wrote:

ibis wrote:

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

Audi, that car is staying firmly on the ground upon which the air is very dense. The atmosphere is at its densest near the surface of the earth where this car will operate. The wind drag slows its possible top speed by a significant degree. If that car was on the Moon, it could travel much faster than on the Earth.

It's also a car, not an aeroplane. The air speed record, set in 2004, is 12,144km/h - 3.37 km/s.

Most importantly - and this is perhaps where people are going completely wrong - is that escape velocity as quoted is the speed which you would have to have if you were fired out of a cannon at the surface and had no further means of propulsion - the muzzle velocity of the cannon. All that is actually necessary to escape Earth's gravity is that you keep going at a speed that allows you to travel upwards.

Luckily I didn't pick that fastest ship example so. This makes sense to me now - the escape velocity. Do you know for how long the ball would have to be travelling at 2.3 km/s if it was designed to leave the moon ? A second or two or something ? Not that it matters as I think I understand that now. And the moon is a lot smaller than the earth too - one sixth the size so the rocket would have to be travelling a lot less too.

If you shot the ball from a cannon, the ball would need to be travelling at 2.3km/s just as it left the muzzle of the cannon. It would gradually lose speed thereafter - it only needs to start at escape velocity.

ibis wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

ibis wrote:

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

Audi, that car is staying firmly on the ground upon which the air is very dense. The atmosphere is at its densest near the surface of the earth where this car will operate. The wind drag slows its possible top speed by a significant degree. If that car was on the Moon, it could travel much faster than on the Earth.

It's also a car, not an aeroplane. The air speed record, set in 2004, is 12,144km/h - 3.37 km/s.

Most importantly - and this is perhaps where people are going completely wrong - is that escape velocity as quoted is the speed which you would have to have if you were fired out of a cannon at the surface and had no further means of propulsion - the muzzle velocity of the cannon. All that is actually necessary to escape Earth's gravity is that you keep going at a speed that allows you to travel upwards.

Luckily I didn't pick that fastest ship example so. This makes sense to me now - the escape velocity. Do you know for how long the ball would have to be travelling at 2.3 km/s if it was designed to leave the moon ? A second or two or something ? Not that it matters as I think I understand that now. And the moon is a lot smaller than the earth too - one sixth the size so the rocket would have to be travelling a lot less too.

If you shot the ball from a cannon, the ball would need to be travelling at 2.3km/s just as it left the muzzle of the cannon. It would gradually lose speed thereafter - it only needs to start at escape velocity.

Yes, an object without propulsion is what escape velocity refers to. So that cannon ball would leave the moon if it could reach the speed of 2.3km/s at the muzzle.

However, the lunar module would have propulsion so could leave the surface eventually - thanks for clearing that one up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity

Auditor #9 wrote:

I am going to try to collect some information on this now with some good links. Toxic your point about explaining planes to people is a good point but do you disdain people who really are doubting Thomases especially about advanced technical things ? There are even some simple and neat things in Australia that people here don't have and they would be very handy but people would look at you as if you were mad if you expressed an interest in these apparently minor details such as take-away sachets of ketchup which are very handy in Oz. Hopefully that new poster shutuplaura can maybe send a photo of one of these things and put our take away sachets here to shame.

Explaining some mechanical or technical item to some people goes way beyond explaining even the most widely disparate cultural differences like types of ketchup sachet. Some lads couldn't install a washing machine for instance - they wouldn't have a clue where to start. Worse, they might not even have the mentalisty to think that they even could learn how to install one. Imagine trying to explain a nuclear submarine to these fellas if you knew how it worked ? Or explaining how a compiler in computer lingo might work ??? The Eagle has landed might be an explanation along those lines thus when they can't see it working their first thought is "it's a hoax". Doubting Thomases - do you doubt they exist ?

I don't doubt that 'Doubting Thomases' exist at all, we're all like that to an extent. What I don't like, though, is a completely closed mind, one that refuses to acknowledge even the possibility that those men, now old, are entitled to feel proud of what they achieved, and do not deserve to be effectively labelled liars and charlatans. And to persist despite the obvious point against their theory that to maintain the conspiracy would require the acquiescence of hundreds upon hundreds of people, all of whom would also have to be incredibly talented and obsessively persistent liars, is bordering on insanity. But I have long since learned that arguing with such people is utterly futile, because you become either a dupe or a co-conspirator yourself, such is the mindset of a closed theory where everything can be explained by recourse to the inviolable theory itself

Unfortunately they did not have a cannon on the moon and the initial speed was zero. So the energy delivered by the rocket would have to be great enough to accelorate the return vehicle to a velocity greater than the escape velocity. The force that would be working against it woulf be the moon's gravity of 1/6 the Earths.

This is a fraction of the energy that would be needed for the prior landing. It would be dealing with a mass of about double the assent stage, it would have to counteract the gravitational pull and thirdly it would have to supply the energy needed to decelorate the mass from orbital speed down to zero for a gentle landing.

I understand rocket science just fine and so would EVM if he has the same engineering degree as me. It may be a while since he studied it but he will understand what I have said above.

He will verify that compared to a smooth landing, taking off would be a piece of cake.

Toxic. This idea that thousands of scientists could not keep a secret is bunk. It has been pointed out already that 100000 worked on the Manhattan Project for 2 years and yet McArthur even did not know about it until a short time before it dropped

youngdan wrote:

Toxic. This idea that thousands of scientists could not keep a secret is bunk. It has been pointed out already that 100000 worked on the Manhattan Project for 2 years and yet McArthur even did not know about it until a short time before it dropped

For forty years? Without any fear of punitive sanction for violating strict wartime secrecy? You are aware that the comparison is completely absurd, no?

youngdan wrote:

Unfortunately they did not have a cannon on the moon and the initial speed was zero. So the energy delivered by the rocket would have to be great enough to accelorate the return vehicle to a velocity greater than the escape velocity. The force that would be working against it woulf be the moon's gravity of 1/6 the Earths.

Ah, I was right. The escape velocity fallacy is the problem. Youngdan, the lander would only have to achieve escape velocity at takeoff if it were going to have a totally unpowered ascent thereafter. That's not the case.

Try the ball experiment.

ibis wrote:

SeathrúnCeitinn wrote:

I went to NASA during the summer and took a look at the Saturn V rocket and was fascinated by the technology required to get that beast off the ground.

But as I stood there and looked at the Lunar module , I was struck with disbelief that such a contraption could have went to the moon and then lifted back off the surface - first go.

Deride me if you will but it just didn't add up for me

Very well, sir - I deride you. Consider the number of engineers who worked on the Moon Lander, and who were perfectly capable of working out whether what they were designing and building could, or could not, lift off the Moon. There were multiple companies involved in the build - yet nobody said "hey, this can't work". Amazing.

Of course I completely accept your disbelief over that. Absolutely. While you're at it, can you visualise billions of years, or should we just go with the Bible? Any difficulties with evolution?

What any one of us can and cannot visualise tells us absolutely nothing whatsoever about what is possible.

Its very funny at NASA. They tell you that you can view a piece of the moon rock at the Moonrock Cafe not 25 yards from the one-to-one scale model of the Lunar module. Take a look. Not a piece of moon rock. They do tell porkies. Interestingly similar pies are available at the Moon rock cafe...........but not available in Ireland ....presently

Yes, there would be a lot less than 100000 involved.

SeathrúnCeitinn wrote:

ibis wrote:

SeathrúnCeitinn wrote:

I went to NASA during the summer and took a look at the Saturn V rocket and was fascinated by the technology required to get that beast off the ground.

But as I stood there and looked at the Lunar module , I was struck with disbelief that such a contraption could have went to the moon and then lifted back off the surface - first go.

Deride me if you will but it just didn't add up for me

Very well, sir - I deride you. Consider the number of engineers who worked on the Moon Lander, and who were perfectly capable of working out whether what they were designing and building could, or could not, lift off the Moon. There were multiple companies involved in the build - yet nobody said "hey, this can't work". Amazing.

Of course I completely accept your disbelief over that. Absolutely. While you're at it, can you visualise billions of years, or should we just go with the Bible? Any difficulties with evolution?

What any one of us can and cannot visualise tells us absolutely nothing whatsoever about what is possible.

Its very funny at NASA. They tell you that you can view a piece of the moon rock at the Moonrock Cafe not 25 yards from the one-to-one scale model of the Lunar module. Take a look. Not a piece of moon rock. They do tell porkies. Interestingly similar pies are available at the Moon rock cafe...........but not available in Ireland ....presently

Oh noes! Moon rock not in café! Clearly the Moon landings were not true either!!

Stop forcing me under the pyramid, dammit.

youngdan wrote:

Yes, there would be a lot less than 100000 involved.

I've decided to believe that you don't really exist, that you're a conspiracy between other posters on this site to pretend that you exist. It doesn't matter if they tell me that you do, because they would say that, wouldn't they?

I remember reading that this picture, at Iwo Jima, was faked by a Time Life photographer.
This one looks real -


There was a little messing with the flag in the moon photos to make it stick out.

I guess that's as much conspiracy as we're going to find.

cactus flower wrote:

I remember reading that this picture, at Iwo Jima, was faked by a Time Life photographer.
This one looks real -


There was a little messing with the flag in the moon photos to make it stick out.

I guess that's as much conspiracy as we're going to find.

It wasn't faked, as such, it was retaken a little later the same day. The first photograph was sent the long way back home by its taker, the second was sent by air, that was the one that got published, arriving long before the first...

They also said that it was the largest Golden Eagle reservation outside of Alaska.......but I didnt see any Golden Eagles.....nor a manatee......but I did see two gators.........said they had fooked off to Miami to pick on migratory Cuban sand cranes

toxic avenger wrote:

youngdan wrote:

Yes, there would be a lot less than 100000 involved.

I've decided to believe that you don't really exist, that you're a conspiracy between other posters on this site to pretend that you exist. It doesn't matter if they tell me that you do, because they would say that, wouldn't they?

Well how many would need to be involved in such a conspiracy (not yours) if there was one ? Just a small handful - you can dig that can't you toxic

I was looking for footage of testing of the lunar lander on earth - there is some on another page here but I was looking for some more anyway. I found this bit of a documentary "A Funny Thing Happened On the Way to the Moon". Anyone ever heard of it ? 10 mins of .... stuff.