Looks like it uses the physics principles of the railgun as explained here:
The Physics of the Railgun | WIRED
There are two parallel rails (hence railgun) and a moveable projectile, which in this case is a conducting metal ball. An electric current goes down one rail, across the projectile and then back down the other rail. In between the two parallel rails, both of the magnetic fields due to the rails point in the same direction and make a stronger magnetic field. This magnetic field then pushes on the projectile with the current running through it to propel it out of the railgun.
Hence, electrical energy is being added - there's no violation of the conservation of energy.
The Physics of the Railgun | WIRED
There are two parallel rails (hence railgun) and a moveable projectile, which in this case is a conducting metal ball. An electric current goes down one rail, across the projectile and then back down the other rail. In between the two parallel rails, both of the magnetic fields due to the rails point in the same direction and make a stronger magnetic field. This magnetic field then pushes on the projectile with the current running through it to propel it out of the railgun.
Hence, electrical energy is being added - there's no violation of the conservation of energy.
Last edited:
Right, so perhaps you're ready to modify your answer to the question that I posed a while back regarding the lack of a single speck of anything on those beautiful golden landing pods? You know, the one where I responded with the video after you offered the explanation of why the landing rockets' thrust made no appreciable dust on descent? I'm still waiting for a reply.🙄
Re the railgun (much more interesting than conspiracy theories!) - Remember Fleming's Left Hand Rule for conventional current that we studied in physics class?
See attachment:
First finger for Field direction, seCond finger for Current direction and thuMb for Movement direction.
See attachment:
First finger for Field direction, seCond finger for Current direction and thuMb for Movement direction.
Attachments
I don't remember the video you posted, perhaps you could repost it.
With no atmosphere to hold the dust in suspension the dust would have fallen straight back to the lunar surface, but we also have to take into account the exhaust pattern from the rocket engine.
In the vacuum, the normally narrow exhaust jet quickly fanned out into a wide cone shape. Hence any dust particles would likely have been blown off the upper surface of the landing pods.
P.S. I haven't seen an image of the upper surface of the landing pods which is of high enough resolution to spot (or not spot) individual specks of lunar dust thereon. Perhaps you can supply the one you have seen?
I explained waaaay back why there wasn’t that much dust kicked up on the moon.
Clue: the rocket is exhausting into a near vacuum
the vid is in post #4585. Here's a pic of an Apollo 11 pod. Remember...enough dust to "almost obscure" their vision. In the vid you can see this all the way to touch down. http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/5920.jpg Pretty clean, eh? Zero, and I mean 0 disturbance. Like it's photoshop
Last edited:
Let me get this right. You are offering a video of a lunar touchdown to prove there was no touchdown?
Here's the updated link to Buzz Aldrin's commentary on the Apollo 11 Moon landing.
https://videos.space.com/m/spRBuGPF/the-big-event-flashback-to-apollo?list=9wzCTV4g
Let's examine the complete statement that Buzz makes about the dust:
The "sprinkling out" is in accord with my explanation of the exhaust pattern, and the full transcript shows how your extremely selective editing (down to the two word phrase "almost obscure") does no justice at all to Buzz's actual description of the landing.
It's almost as if it were you making up facts and not NASA! 😉
Anyway, that's my last word on conspiracy theories, I've got bigger fish to fry. 😱
Attachments
Is that a Freudian fish? 🙂
an awfully wordy one at that.
The vid and the pic is all that's needed.
Oh, and Buzz's corroboration
an awfully wordy one at that.
The vid and the pic is all that's needed.
Oh, and Buzz's corroboration
Last edited:
This is ridiculous, and you're making a mockery of the brave people who have risked their lives (and died)
in this program. STFU already.
New Images Offer Sharper View of Apollo Sites | NASA
in this program. STFU already.
New Images Offer Sharper View of Apollo Sites | NASA
Last edited:
FWIW, I don't conscribe myself to conspiracy theorist innnuendo. I'm looking at the facts as presented. Why are they presented? A duck is a duck. When has the truth not been painful?
Oh, and those who risked their lives went in with eyes open, moon landing aside.
kudos to them. Not sure I would be so brave given the opportunity
Oh, and those who risked their lives went in with eyes open, moon landing aside.
kudos to them. Not sure I would be so brave given the opportunity
Last edited:
Speaking of the intersection of NASA and fiction, I've always thought this was one of the most interesting pics that combines both. This shuttle was the pre-space one, that only flew on the back of an airliner, was "launched" and glided to a landing, testing the landing before the "real" shuttles flew. Like the others eventually wound up, it's in some museum somewhere.
The Shuttle Enterprise | NASA
There's surely people who think no human has actually been into orbit or outer space, but I don't even wanna think about it ...
The Shuttle Enterprise | NASA
There's surely people who think no human has actually been into orbit or outer space, but I don't even wanna think about it ...
I saw them on live TV each time splash down in the ocean. Amateur radio hams picked up their transmissions,
and amateur astronomers tracked them. So STFU and go get the shot, which you no doubt also think
is a conspiracy.
So you place your faith in a splashdown? I think you're alone in that case. Your gullibility betrays naivity. Amateur radio hams, astronomers? Seriously? Now why would they be needed to confirm your position?
🙂 I'll be first in line for a booster after two cuz I know we're in for a rough ride. Down there it appears yer still not sure.😉
Oh, still waiting for that FM3 trick 🙂
Why get into this stuff here? This belongs over on the ‘alien’ thread. Surely we can have one place on the forum for decent science discussions? Seriously.
You may be interested in the comparison images I posted back on page 457 (see attachment).
What we see is a comparison of the Apollo 17 landing site between the original 16 mm footage shot from the Lunar Module window during ascent in 1972, and the 2011 lunar reconnaissance orbiter (LRO) image of the Apollo 17 landing site.
Note the matching of the lunar rover tracks.
Now, the LRO may have been launched by NASA, but the camera and the interpretation of the images are under the control of non-affiliated academic groups which are not located in the US and are not funded by the US government, such as the German Aerospace Center, Berlin.
Attachments
- Status
- Not open for further replies.