Re: The Moon landing again - Fw: Neil Armstrong's Boots
12.07.2016, 16:48, "Tom" <tom@vondein.org>:
This massive thrust would have blown the dust away from the landing area creating a massive dust cloud, so why was thick dust still on the ground and no massive dust cloud? Please explain NASA.
No atmosphere, no blowing.
- Tom
He's talking about the module thrusters, you don't need atmosphere to blow particles on the ground.
No atmosphere, no blowing. He's talking about the module thrusters, you don't need atmosphere to blow particles on the ground.
Ok. It's been debunked anyway: http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/1691/why-didnt-the-apollo-11-lander... - Tom
On 07/12/2016 07:07 AM, Tom wrote:
No atmosphere, no blowing. He's talking about the module thrusters, you don't need atmosphere to blow particles on the ground. Ok. It's been debunked anyway: http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/1691/why-didnt-the-apollo-11-lander...
- Tom
Well I stand corrected. It was the "Electrical opposite" of what I stated in my last post. Positive Ionic charge, not negative. Rr
On 07/12/2016 06:54 AM, Bastiani Fortress wrote:
12.07.2016, 16:48, "Tom" <tom@vondein.org>:
This massive thrust would have blown the dust away from the landing area creating a massive dust cloud, so why was thick dust still on the ground and no massive dust cloud? Please explain NASA. No atmosphere, no blowing.
- Tom He's talking about the module thrusters, you don't need atmosphere to blow particles on the ground.
And they drop right back down pretty much where they stirred from. Ever worked in a machine shop that had banks of Negative Ion Generators in the ceiling for dust control? Like that. Ps. Didn't the LE module use the smaller outrigger thrusters to land? I don't think the main engine was operational as it approached the surface b/c minimal gravity so it's not like the thing needed massive energy to keep from a hard touchdown.
participants (3)
-
Bastiani Fortress -
Rayzer -
Tom