Did the Americans put a man on the moon?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120091667#Comment_120091667

Your argument is entirely and completely wrong on every level. You have demonstrated that you simply just don't have any understanding of physics at all and misunderstand concepts taught at secondary school level.

Claiming "the air has reaction" is complete nonsense and is not what is meant by Newton's 3rd law.

The confidence by which you express your complete and utter misunderstanding is amazing, especially when you are declaring all scientists around the world ignorant.

Again I have to wonder if this is just a bit where you are parodying conspiracy theorists to make some kind of backwards point.

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120091109#Comment_120091109

The moon has an atmosphere about as dense as the air surrounding the international space station.

For all practical purposes the moon has no atmosphere

The real question, is why Marcus thinks you need air to slow down a rocket?

Rockets carry propellent and an oxidiser to allow it to burn and generate high pressure gasses. Newtons 3rd law is that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. By shooting gasses in one direction, the gasses push the rocket back in the opposite direction. The rocket doesn't work because it's pushing off something, the propellant pushes the rocket at the exact force that the rocket pushes the propellant but in opposite directions

magicbastarder

Or to put it in more everyday terms; let's say you're sitting in an office chair on casters and throw a bowling ball away from you as hard as possible. What happens you in the chair? You roll away in the other direction a little.

This works regardless of whether there's air there or not.

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120091840#Comment_120091840

If you burn or expel anything in a vacuum, it will simply vent out and disperse with no net change in velocity/momentum of the vessel. In order to change the speed or direction of anything you simply have to obey Newton's 1st which requires an external force.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120091850#Comment_120091850

Did you actually try this? Try it and I guarantee that no matter how heavy the ball and no matter how hard you throw it, you will move very little and any movement will have been caused by pushing of the surrounding air not by "the ejection of mass". You may also get an aggressive sliding of the casters but this is due to you torquing yourself around your centre of gravity. Push the bowling ball at level below your centre of gravity and you will get miniscule/no movement at all.

A more effective way of pushing yourself on the office chair would be to use something external like the table or use a very large surface area gym ball which would maximize the amount of air you push against

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120091667#Comment_120091667

This is an equivalent of how they landed on the moon. Gravity is 6x less on the moon so they didn't need as much thrust

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNlZXso0-I4

Use thrust, a lot of it, to get a rocket into space (this has been done thousands of times), travel through vacuum of space, then use thrust to slow down as moon is reached. Use lunar lander (similar to the above) to land on moon. The details are complex, but the fundamentals are pretty straight-forward.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120092052#Comment_120092052

If you burn or expel anything in a vacuum, it will simply vent out and disperse with no net change in velocity/momentum of the vessel.

Nope. completely false and at odds with basic physics.

You are again displaying your lack of understanding and the fundamental flaw at the heart of this conspiracy theory.

People only believe something so silly because they don't understand basic concepts and have decided that it can't be that they are wrong, it must be every single scientist who is wrong.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120092206#Comment_120092206

Please remember though that Markus claims that all the space program is faked. So the above video is also fake according to him.

As are all physics textbooks.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120091840#Comment_120091840

The real question, is why Marcus thinks you need air to slow down a rocket?

It's indeed strange as most other moon hoax believers aren't as extreme in their claims.

Most at least understand how rockets work and don't believe that they don't work in space.

The ones who do agree with Markus tend to be the really extreme types who believe the world is flat and that space is filled with water or something.

robinph

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120092052#Comment_120092052

So would there be more movement caused by throwing a bowling ball whilst sat in a chair, or an air filled balloon?

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120092278#Comment_120092278

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdedV81UQ5k

1972 state of the art CGI.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120092677#Comment_120092677

I think the go among conspiracy theorists was that Nasa actually spent a sizable portion of their budget on developing super advanced CGI technology that they never again used outside of faking space missions.

I believe markus' contends that all footage from space, including scenes inside the ships and stations is all made by CGI.

The details of how this is done and why Nasa keeps leaving in things that blow the conspiracy remain vague and unaddressed

Deja Boo

...

Hoboo

Virgin can’t put a rocket into space in 2023 but we landed men on the moon 50 years ago yet not once since (something something too expensive).

In 1972, the same year as the last so called landing, the first calculator was released, retailing at $395. That’s the technology we had at the time. That’s the cost of the most basic technology, yet they claim to have been able to put humans on the moon 6 times in 3 years, but not now when we’ve never had so much wealth, technology and resources.

In comparison, Artemis 1 was 5 years delayed from 2017-2022, and that was an unmanned mission. Artemis 2 won’t be ready until sometime in 2024 at the very earliest for a manned mission, although it may not even be manned, time will tell. But they managed 6 manned landing in 3 years 50 years ago.

You could spend hours picking holes, absolute fairy tales 😂

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120092767#Comment_120092767

OK. If that's the case what is the reason that people aren't actually able to go to the moon?

Do you agree with the current claim that rockets don't actually work in space?

Neowise

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120085438#Comment_120085438

How do you slow down a rocket that weighs 10 tonnes+ traveling at 25000mph in an environment that has no air?

1) if rocket is orbiting earth.

2) and point the rocket so the burn pushes you in the direction of the red arrow.

Then the resulting path the rocket would take may look something like this,

3) so you have put lots of energy into the craft at point A, and it works its way up out further up the gravity well, until at some point, the energy put into the rocket will not be sufficient to escape earths gravity well, some where near point B it stops ascending away from earth and starts its fall back to earth, continually gaining speed until it reaches the 25000mph figure again, then it fires up the gravity well again until it stops again at point B and turns around and comes flying back down.

4) now, imagine you timed the burn perfectly, so that when reaching point B, you are in close vicinity to the moon, well at that point, you wouldn't need to scrub any of the 25kmph away, because its all been used to climb out of the gravity well towards the moon, all you need to do now is ensure that you don't escape out of the moons weak gravity well that you are in the vicinity off. the rocket can make a burn to orbit the moon and not fall back toward earth.

5) later when wanting to leave the moon and return back to earth, you just need to escape the moons orbit, and then earths gravity will do all the heavy work of getting you home.

Math is used to work out the exact length of burns that are required, all you need to do as a pilot of such a rocket is point it in the right direction and count.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120092776#Comment_120092776

Markus is contending that rocket engines do not work in a vacuum as according to him they require "air to push off".

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120092052#Comment_120092052

Seriously, go back to school.

Based on your reasoning, no one has ever been into orbit, or else they'd have never been able to make it home.

Bogwoppit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120092787#Comment_120092787

This is exactly what Markus believes, he’s made this claim many times.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120092787#Comment_120092787

He also must not believe that satellites exists as they require rockets operating in space to get them into orbit.

Which lends credence to him being a fact earther if he does sincerely believe all of these things.

Big Bag of Chips

@King Mob you are on thin ice in this forum. Repeatedly posting simply to disagree with posters has been addressed with you before. You were thread banned for it. Engage in discussion. Offer your own explanation as to how the science works, like other posters are able to, or don't post.

If you offer no explanations or evidence then you yourself are also guilty of just parroting what you've heard. If you're going to disagree with posters, then post your reasoning for disagreeing. Not just "no, you're wrong".

That's not discussion.

magicbastarder

Did you actually try this? Try it and I guarantee that no matter how heavy the ball and no matter how hard you throw it, you will move very little and any movement will have been caused by pushing of the surrounding air not by "the ejection of mass".

how much air could the ball have come in contact with to be able to push the chair back, even a little? 50l?

because that is all the air the ball could be in contact with when it is in my hands; once it leaves my hands it's unable to apply any more force on me, no matter how much air it moves through.

a 20cm diameter bowling ball would have a cross sectional area of .12sqm, and probably been in my hands for say 50cm of movement. that's actually 60l of air it'd have moved through. which would weigh about 80g.

try pushing yourself off a solid weight of 80g - which is free to move - and see how much traction you get. in short, the impulse you get from this bowling ball experiment does not come from a reaction to air.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120092767#Comment_120092767

Virgin can’t put a rocket into space in 2023 but we landed men on the moon 50 years ago yet not once since (something something too expensive).

Out of the thousands of successful launches, you pick one that had an issue, off to a questionable start there. The US landed on the moon 6 times, in fairly quick succession, each one was still mind-bogglingly expensive. Since they'd "won" the space race at that stage, there wasn't really the political will to keep repeating the same thing.

In 1972, the same year as the last so called landing, the first calculator was released, retailing at $395. That’s the technology we had at the time

In the 60's we had supersonic airliners that could cruise at mach 2. The computers on the Apollo missions were rudimentary, but they each did their job. When computers had to be shut down during Apollo 13, the crew and mission control used slide rules, pencils and paper and did their own calculations.

You could spend hours picking holes, absolute fairy tales 😂

It would be incredible, fantastic, if it were all a fairy tale. In my experience it's only ever individuals who reproduce the same easily explained tropes over and over, whilst running away whenever asked for details on how it was all faked. So please feel free to buck that trend..

magicbastarder

also, modern fighter jets don't go as fast as ones in the 70s did either.

joe40

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120091667#Comment_120091667

Are you actually serious in this post. The rocket's acceleration is the reaction to the force from the rocket.

Do you think that all the space probes that have been launched are fake, so all the information we know about the other planets is fake.

What about the landers that are sending back images from Mars.

sydthebeat

A rocket moves in space because the gases are given momentum as they are expelled by the rocket engine. Consider the rocket resting in space. There is no momentum in the system. Next, the engine ignites. As the exhaust gases go in one direction, the rocket goes in the other to keep the total momentum of the system constant. This momentum change of the gases gives the rocket the "push" to go forward. We call this push, the thrust of the rocket, i.e. the force exerted on the rocket.

This thrust depends upon the speed of the exhaust gases and the mass of gas being expelled each second, sometimes called the burn rate in pounds of fuel per second. On Earth, air tends to inhibit the exhaust gases getting out of the engine. This reduces the thrust. However, in space since there is no atmosphere, the exhaust gases can exit much easier and faster, thus increasing the thrust. Therefore, the rocket engine actually works better in space than here on Earth.

https://www.uu.edu/dept/physics/scienceguys/2002Sept.cfm#:~:text=On%20Earth%2C%20air%20tends%20to,space%20than%20here%20on%20Earth.

this is very very basic stuff

Dohnjoe

Also I'm not sure why the US moon landings hog the limelight with this bizarre denial stuff. In the 1950's the Soviets launched a spacecraft and took pictures of the dark side of the moon. We flew craft to Mars and Venus in the 60's. One year after Apollo 11 the Soviets landed an actual remote-controlled lunar rover on the moon. If it were impossible with the technology at the time, what happened with all that?

sydthebeat

id hate if markus ever had to fire a shot gun........

joe40

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120093470#Comment_120093470

I can't be sure about this but I imagine another issue with modern manned space travel is mundane health and safety. The dangers with the appollo missions were immense, I just don't think those risks would be accepted nowadays. Political pride was at stake the human risk was acceptable.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120093641#Comment_120093641

Usually it's because conspiracy theorists just aren't aware of the multitude of space missions that have happened or are happening. It's not uncommon to see that they didn't know that there were multiple Apollo landings.

For them space missions are limited to Apollo 11 and whatever mission happens to be in the news of late (like the the Virgin launch previously mentioned.)

In a way, it does make the conspiracy theory seem more plausible if there were only a handful of space missions

Recently I've been watching through this guys backlog of videos that goes into a ton of detail of various unmanned missions and the images they send back:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKUkFHJL-b8

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120093562#Comment_120093562

to answer the first two questions

1. Yes they are
2. Yes they do.

The same poster thinks Newton was wrong. Yeah, that Newton.