Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #40 on: February 09, 2020, 11:10:26 AM »
STS-131 - at 6m15s or so, do you see any indication of anything coming from any of the engines?


How many videos show the presence of jet exhaust from jets when they are landing?

I can't say precisely how many, but here's a few;

Note when the engines cross the top of the tree line;



At 0.05, 0.58, when the engines cross the tree line, at 1.50, and so on ....


Well, a couple of things...

First, there is a distinct contrast (courtesy of the surroundings) provided in the 747 shots, not typically available during shuttle landings and the engines on a 747 are much larger.

I will still look for that particular shuttle video though, because there is no doubt  it makes the same sound as a jet landing, complete with engine wind down and shut off.

*

Online Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1561
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #41 on: February 09, 2020, 11:37:26 AM »
At 5;20 mark we have the shuttle at 370 mph with 30 seconds to touch down. Give me a break, I mean BRAKE, no way in hell your slowing that bird to shoot deployment from 370 MPH, thus cutaway and approx 120 mph touchdown !!! All bulshi.....

The split rudder is deployed, acting as an air brake, and the landing speed was closer to 225mph, around 195 knots.

Deploy parachute within two seconds of touchdown, and ..... craft slows down to a stop.
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.

*

Online Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1561
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #42 on: February 09, 2020, 02:51:59 PM »
The last one was STS-135;



Note the infra-red imagery at 13m30s or so. White = hot. The tyres, the underside. Do those "jet engines" look hot?

I'm finding them with youtube searches for "STS-nnn landing" where nnn is the mission number, 001 thru 135. Where are you looking?
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.

*

Offline J-Man

  • *
  • Posts: 600
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #43 on: February 10, 2020, 02:10:43 AM »
At 5;20 mark we have the shuttle at 370 mph with 30 seconds to touch down. Give me a break, I mean BRAKE, no way in hell your slowing that bird to shoot deployment from 370 MPH, thus cutaway and approx 120 mph touchdown !!! All bulshi.....

The split rudder is deployed, acting as an air brake, and the landing speed was closer to 225mph, around 195 knots.

Deploy parachute within two seconds of touchdown, and ..... craft slows down to a stop.

Can't happen, takes jet engines with reverse thrust to slow that bird, like any other aircraft.
What kind of person would devote endless hours posting scientific facts trying to correct the few retards who believe in the FE? I slay shitty little demons.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1288
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #44 on: February 10, 2020, 07:07:45 AM »
At 5;20 mark we have the shuttle at 370 mph with 30 seconds to touch down. Give me a break, I mean BRAKE, no way in hell your slowing that bird to shoot deployment from 370 MPH, thus cutaway and approx 120 mph touchdown !!! All bulshi.....

The split rudder is deployed, acting as an air brake, and the landing speed was closer to 225mph, around 195 knots.

Deploy parachute within two seconds of touchdown, and ..... craft slows down to a stop.

Can't happen, takes jet engines with reverse thrust to slow that bird, like any other aircraft.

Apparently jet engines are not required. Here's a worthwhile video on how the shuttle landed from space:



Here's a written explanation with some supporting official documentation:

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/21981/how-does-the-space-shuttle-slow-down-during-re-entry-descent-and-landing

Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Online Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1561
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #45 on: February 10, 2020, 09:51:15 AM »
Can't happen, takes jet engines with reverse thrust to slow that bird, like any other aircraft.

"When it has actually landed it has a parachute that slows it down, as well as normal wheel brakes, that help slow it down. The engines are nor working during landing, so there is no reverse thrust."

From the link quoted above.

The max landing weight of a 747 is 312,000 Kilograms. Empty shuttle 75,000 or so.  Quarter of the weight, needs one quarter of the effort to stop.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2020, 09:55:09 AM by Tumeni »
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #46 on: February 10, 2020, 09:57:14 AM »
You brought the issue of the space shuttle up.
Then want to blame me?
I mentioned it in response to Pete's assertion that my beliefs in this area are blind. They are not, I have literally seen a space shuttle launch.
I didn't mean it to get into some protracted discussion about whether it has jet engines.
It doesn't, and you have provided no evidence other than vague assertions that you hear something which you think is a jet engine.
But even if it did, so what?

Quote
Fact is, rockets cannot operate in a vacuum.

That isn't a fact. It's literally the opposite of a fact. I have posted a video which shows a rocket working in a vacuum.
You've lied about the pressure gauge not working - despite the fact you can clearly see the needle moving in the video.
You've tried to claim the fact he taps the gauge as significant - I have shown you documentation regarding that.
Stop making excuses. Post some actual evidence of your claim

Quote
Free expansion states that gas, when released in a vacuum, does zero work. That's scientific fact.

That actually is a scientific fact (although I'm interested how you guys cherry pick which parts of science you accept as factual).
But that's not how rockets work. Some more explanation here:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/91789/rocket-thrust-gas-free-expansion-of-gas
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 183
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #47 on: February 10, 2020, 11:07:35 AM »


Quote
Fact is, rockets cannot operate in a vacuum.

That isn't a fact. It's literally the opposite of a fact. I have posted a video which shows a rocket working in a vacuum.
You've lied about the pressure gauge not working - despite the fact you can clearly see the needle moving in the video.
You've tried to claim the fact he taps the gauge as significant - I have shown you documentation regarding that.
Stop making excuses. Post some actual evidence of your claim

Quote
Free expansion states that gas, when released in a vacuum, does zero work. That's scientific fact.

That actually is a scientific fact (although I'm interested how you guys cherry pick which parts of science you accept as factual).
But that's not how rockets work. Some more explanation here:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/91789/rocket-thrust-gas-free-expansion-of-gas
[/quote]

You admit a scientific fact , which you call " cherry pick". This is real scientific fact gained through observation and explained with the laws of physics . No resistance - no work done = no thrust .

You bluster about proof being a video showing rocket engines working in a vacuum ( after they have been changed into bombs ). Then you post a link to a forum full of waffle - at one point I read that " that doesn't mean the gas doesn't do anything " . Where's the real scientific data gained through experiment ? James Joule gave you that. 




You can't add a bucket of Newtons 3rd to provide thrust .

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #48 on: February 10, 2020, 12:09:22 PM »
You brought the issue of the space shuttle up.
Then want to blame me?
I mentioned it in response to Pete's assertion that my beliefs in this area are blind. They are not, I have literally seen a space shuttle launch.
I didn't mean it to get into some protracted discussion about whether it has jet engines.
It doesn't, and you have provided no evidence other than vague assertions that you hear something which you think is a jet engine.
But even if it did, so what?
Well, I responded.

I didn't derail.
Quote
Fact is, rockets cannot operate in a vacuum.
That isn't a fact. It's literally the opposite of a fact. I have posted a video which shows a rocket working in a vacuum. You've tried to claim the fact he taps the gauge as significant - I have shown you documentation regarding that. You've lied about the pressure gauge not working - despite the fact you can clearly see the needle moving in the video.
Stop making excuses. Post some actual evidence of your claim.
No, you posted some video about a broken gauge.

If the gauge was indeed working properly, why tap on it?

Answer - it isn't working properly.

Plus, you never did get back to us with a citation regarding the scientifically acceptable tapping technique regarding malfunctioning or inoperable gauges.
Quote
Free expansion states that gas, when released in a vacuum, does zero work. That's scientific fact.

That actually is a scientific fact (although I'm interested how you guys cherry pick which parts of science you accept as factual).
But that's not how rockets work. Some more explanation here:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/91789/rocket-thrust-gas-free-expansion-of-gas
Your gonna post some internet joker's opinion on some forum blog as evidence?

Please...

You cannot simultaneously claim a gas is released and compressed at the same time within the confines of a vacuum.

That is why your videos offered are useless.

Rockets work because they are able to release the gas in a pressurized environment.

Once they enter an environment without pressure (vacuum), they are just like any other container of gas. Any gas they have in them cannot do any other thing but expand out with no reactionary force.

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #49 on: February 10, 2020, 01:11:09 PM »
You admit a scientific fact , which you call " cherry pick". This is real scientific fact gained through observation and explained with the laws of physics.

The cherry picking is citing some science in this area but ignoring science that deals with things like, say, gravity which most FE models deny.

Quote
You bluster about proof being a video showing rocket engines working in a vacuum ( after they have been changed into bombs ). Then you post a link to a forum full of waffle
The waffle was to explain the difference between the free expansion lackey is describing and what a rocket does.
The video was clear enough, I note that in lackey's response he has continued to lie about it and at this stage it's clear he's just trolling so I won't bother responding further.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #50 on: February 10, 2020, 01:22:44 PM »
You admit a scientific fact , which you call " cherry pick". This is real scientific fact gained through observation and explained with the laws of physics.

The cherry picking is citing some science in this area but ignoring science that deals with things like, say, gravity which most FE models deny.
Gravity is not the subject here.
Quote
You bluster about proof being a video showing rocket engines working in a vacuum ( after they have been changed into bombs ). Then you post a link to a forum full of waffle
The waffle was to explain the difference between the free expansion lackey is describing and what a rocket does.
The video was clear enough, I note that in lackey's response he has continued to lie about it and at this stage it's clear he's just trolling so I won't bother responding further.
It is evident you have no meaningful response.

You posted a video of some guy tapping a malfunctioning gauge, with absolutely nothing resembling anything close to a rocket in operation, boasting, "HEY!!! HERE IS PROOF A ROCKET CAN WORK IN A VACUUM!"

The link you provided was a forum formed of people on the Internet discussing free expansion, stating that could not possibly apply to a rocket in space, and who cannot understand that a pressurized gas container located in a vacuum, when allowed to vent, discharge, or eject its contents into that vacuum, will simply lie there.

Won't move a lick.

If you could somehow first set it in motion and then introduce it to the vacuum environment, it will maintain the momentum that it had on arrival (until some other force acts on it), but any further release of gas could not and would not be that force, because of the science of free expansion.

You can call me a troll if you like, but that statement is shown to have the same amount of substance as the supposed rocket proof video.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2020, 04:22:34 PM by totallackey »

*

Offline J-Man

  • *
  • Posts: 600
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #51 on: February 10, 2020, 02:53:17 PM »
At 5;20 mark we have the shuttle at 370 mph with 30 seconds to touch down. Give me a break, I mean BRAKE, no way in hell your slowing that bird to shoot deployment from 370 MPH, thus cutaway and approx 120 mph touchdown !!! All bulshi.....

The split rudder is deployed, acting as an air brake, and the landing speed was closer to 225mph, around 195 knots.

Deploy parachute within two seconds of touchdown, and ..... craft slows down to a stop.

Can't happen, takes jet engines with reverse thrust to slow that bird, like any other aircraft.

Apparently jet engines are not required. Here's a worthwhile video on how the shuttle landed from space:



Here's a written explanation with some supporting official documentation:

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/21981/how-does-the-space-shuttle-slow-down-during-re-entry-descent-and-landing
It takes (4) of these behemoths to reverse thrust and slow that sucker. Enjoy !

What kind of person would devote endless hours posting scientific facts trying to correct the few retards who believe in the FE? I slay shitty little demons.

*

Online Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1561
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #52 on: February 10, 2020, 03:02:35 PM »
Can we turn the discussion the other way, then, since you assert that rockets do not work in vacuum?

The implication seems to be that you assert that rockets DO work with some other gas outside the rocket nozzle. If so, could you tell us how that might work?

Surely the emerging cloud of exhaust product from the engine pushes the other gases away, and once it has done this, they provide no resistance?
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.

*

Online Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1561
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #53 on: February 10, 2020, 03:41:32 PM »
It takes (4) of these behemoths to reverse thrust and slow that sucker.

It's four times heavier and far, far larger. Inference being it would take less than one of them to stop the shuttle.

No?
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 183
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #54 on: February 10, 2020, 03:53:12 PM »
Can we turn the discussion the other way, then, since you assert that rockets do not work in vacuum?

The implication seems to be that you assert that rockets DO work with some other gas outside the rocket nozzle. If so, could you tell us how that might work?

Surely the emerging cloud of exhaust product from the engine pushes the other gases away, and once it has done this, they provide no resistance?

No , I make no implication or assertion .  Scientific principles only. Joules experiment.
Exhaust flow encounters resistance from (pushes against as you say ) atmospheric pressure , exerts a force - newtons 2nd law  - which causes reactive force of thrust newtons 3rd . No outer pressure then no force or push , so no thrust or reaction.

Rocket engines rely on conversion of thermal energy to kinetic energy to provide thrust as outlined. If there is no outer pressure then the thermal energy from the exothermic chemical reaction of the rocket fuel will just escape to vacuum , maybe heat the nozzle a bit.

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #55 on: February 10, 2020, 04:20:59 PM »
Can we turn the discussion the other way, then, since you assert that rockets do not work in vacuum?
I do not assert this.

I quote scientists stating this as a fact.

The science states, unequivocally: "In free expansion there is no work done as there is no external pressure."
The implication seems to be that you assert that rockets DO work with some other gas outside the rocket nozzle. If so, could you tell us how that might work?
Rockets work in the atmoplane.

The amount of work done by a rocket engine is: force×displacement.

Please make note there is nothing to displace in a vacuum.
Surely the emerging cloud of exhaust product from the engine pushes the other gases away, and once it has done this, they provide no resistance?
See above.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2020, 12:34:39 PM by totallackey »

*

Online Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1561
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #56 on: February 10, 2020, 04:30:10 PM »
The amount of work done by a rocket engine is: force×displacement.

Displacement of ...what? The atmosphere around the engine?

what about when that atmosphere has been displaced?
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #57 on: February 10, 2020, 04:39:03 PM »
The amount of work done by a rocket engine is: force×displacement.

Displacement of ...what? The atmosphere around the engine?

what about when that atmosphere has been displaced?
lackey is trying to equate free expansion with a rocket which propels the gas out of the nozzle with explosive force.
It's a false equivalence although as I said I suspect he is trolling now.

https://www.explainthatstuff.com/spacerockets.html

Quote
It's a common mistake to think that rockets move forward by "pushing back against the air"—and it's easy to see that this is a mistake when you remember that there's no air in space to push against.
Rockets move upward by firing hot exhaust gas downward, rather like jet planes—or blown-up balloons from which you let the (cold) air escape. This is an example of what's often called "action and reaction" (another name for Newton's third law of motion): the hot exhaust gas firing down (the action) creates an equal and opposite force (the reaction) that speeds the rocket up. The action is the force of the gas, the reaction's the force acting on the rocket—and the two forces are of equal size, but pointing in opposite directions, and acting on different things (which is why they don't cancel out).
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Online Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1561
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #58 on: February 10, 2020, 04:56:51 PM »
Exhaust flow encounters resistance from (pushes against as you say ) atmospheric pressure , exerts a force - newtons 2nd law  - which causes reactive force of thrust newtons 3rd . No outer pressure then no force or push , so no thrust or reaction

Again, what happens once the rocket exhaust has pushed the atmosphere away? Where's the reactive force then?
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #59 on: February 10, 2020, 05:04:26 PM »
The amount of work done by a rocket engine is: force×displacement.

Displacement of ...what? The atmosphere around the engine?

what about when that atmosphere has been displaced?
Displacement = gasses from the rocket into the pressurized environment of the atmoplane.

Force = the speed at which it is ejected.

Of course the air of the atmoplane is displaced by the rocket gasses being ejected.
The amount of work done by a rocket engine is: force×displacement.

Displacement of ...what? The atmosphere around the engine?

what about when that atmosphere has been displaced?

lackey is trying to equate free expansion with a rocket which propels the gas out of the nozzle with explosive force.
It's a false equivalence although as I said I suspect he is trolling now.

https://www.explainthatstuff.com/spacerockets.html

Quote
It's a common mistake to think that rockets move forward by "pushing back against the air"—and it's easy to see that this is a mistake when you remember that there's no air in space to push against.
Rockets move upward by firing hot exhaust gas downward, rather like jet planes—or blown-up balloons from which you let the (cold) air escape. This is an example of what's often called "action and reaction" (another name for Newton's third law of motion): the hot exhaust gas firing down (the action) creates an equal and opposite force (the reaction) that speeds the rocket up. The action is the force of the gas, the reaction's the force acting on the rocket—and the two forces are of equal size, but pointing in opposite directions, and acting on different things (which is why they don't cancel out).
No, I'm not.