XPost: alt.conspiracy
From: theobviousgcashman@theobviousindiana.edu
In article <987gm05niot90dvactkfs2spcmcsnfdbse@4ax.com>,
Douglas Berry wrote:
>In our last thrilling episode, spion910@my-deja.com (James Bond) was
>pushed over the cliffs of alt.conspiracy on 9 Oct 2004 05:17:12 -0700
>by Zoog, minion of Zathar. As he fell, he screamed:
>
>>Nicely put FG.
>>
>>There is no blast crater or dust on the moon landers feet.
>
>There's no blast crater because the engine was throttled back to ten
>percent power and cut off commpletely at six feet AGL.
>
>You could also do the physics to figure the actual pressure of the
>gasses coming from the engine bell on the surface. Enough to blow
>away loose dust, but nowhere near enough to dig a hole.
I've done the physics and posted the results here before. Actual
force exerted by the lander on the surface during the landing of the
Apollo LEMs was less than that which the average adult can exert on
a horizontal surface, measured in per square inch terms.
There is no dust on any of the lander's feet because there is no
air in which to suspend the dust. Thus, any dust pushed up from the
surface by the force of the landing would be thrown awan from the
lander, and not on to it. Some force would need to act on the dust
to bring it back, against the force of the lander's exhaust, onto
the lander's feet. Without an atmosphere, that wasn't going to happen...
and didn't happen.
As for not going back...very, very old and tired argument. How
about you tell us all why we should go back to the moon? Also,
but this silly argument of yours, it's impossible for us to
build supersonic commercial airplanes, since none are in service
now. Same for battleships. Just because we *have* done something
doesn't mean we're going to keep on doing it forever and ever into
the future. We're not having death matches in Roman coliseums
any more either.
-Geoff
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
