Are collisions between two bodies moving in space realistic, given one has been launched off a third moving body? A dynamic model of the Earth/Moon System and the Apollo Missions.
Introduction
The Apollo moon landing hoax accusations are a series of claims alleging that the Apollo Moon Landings never took place, but were instead faked by NASA. Nearly all interested scientists, technicians and space enthusiasts who have commented on the accusations have rejected them as baseless. Public opinion polls in the United States have shown that a large majority accept the Apollo missions as fact, while a notable percentage have at least some doubts about them.
Aim
If it is possible for a Rocket to make it all the way to the Moon, land, and then return to the Earth, it should be quite simple to show this in an experiment-- right?
Hypothesis
That a model rocket (barbecue sauce bottle with paper wings), launched from a model Earth (basket ball), will be able to make contact with a model Moon (a balloon) moving through 3 dimensional space.
Method
In order to test the hypothesis, that it’s even possible to land a craft on a falling object (the moon is technically free falling, but the curvature of its fall it the same as the curvature of the Earth) I conducted the following experiment.
1: Note the "Moon" was a balloon dropped from a height, thus accurately modelling a free falling body in space. There was a minor complication with the installation of the “Rocket” wings. One was put on backwards (see pictures). However, it was assumed the effect of this error would be negligible.
2: The “Rocket” was placed in launch position on the “Earth”, and the “Moon” held at a height above the ground.
3:The “Moon” was released.
4:The “Rocket” was then launched (thrown at the balloon) on a path to “land” on the moon. (A successful landing was considered to be any contact made with the “Moon”, by the “Rocket”.)
5:This procedure was repeated ten times for accuracy.
Results
As can be seen from the photographs, all “landing” attempts were unsuccessful.
Discussion and Conclusion
As was stated in the method, this procedure was repeated to ensure reliability. The hypothesis was that a model rocket (barbecue sauce bottle with paper wings), launched from a model Earth (basket ball), will be able to make contact with a model moon (a balloon) moving through 3 dimensional space. This hypothesis has been falsified in every attempted landing. Therefore it is unreasonable to assume that such a collision is realistically possible.
However, there is potential for further investigation. For example, real rockets make a “roaring” noise on takeoff and someone at NASA does a countdown. This was not undertaken in this investigation. Next time I’ll say: “5, 4, 3, 2, 1, Liftoff!” and then make a roaring noise when I throw the Rocket into the air.
Given this model represents a much simpler system that the actual Earth/Moon system, and the hypothesis has been falsified, the claim that people have actually ever been to the moon seems somewhat suspect and further investigation is required.
_________
Tagged - Conspiracy Theory, Moon Landing, 9-11, Fallacy, Skepticism.
Update - more experimental work from Spooked911
Update 2 - I've now put the photos in an Image Shack slide show. Looks good.
Posts
22 comments:
Hmmm... Theo, you have obviously missed the MOST important part of firing rockets into space in your experiment: FIRE!
Every right thinking person knows that in order for a rocket to function correctly it must have flames coming out the end!
However, this omission is easily addressed thought the prudent application of sparklers in the appropriate place.
The ritual of lighting the 'engines' (sparklers) can now be included as part of the countdown.
I predict that the engines will now make the appropriate 'whooshing' noises, which when combined with the countdown and flames, will now allow the rocket to accurately intercept with the moon, release its crew of Lego men (it does have a crew doesn't it?) to collect samples and return them all safely the basketball- er... I mean Earth.
This was a preliminary investigation but already it is generating fruitful ideas for further research!
Thanks for a brilliant suggestion Ben. I'll use it when I apply for a research grant from the European Space Agency.
How much does a packet of sparklers go for these days anyway? The ESA budget isn't as big as NASA's.
I think a serious flaw in the experiment is the indented lines on the basketball. The basketball is a reasonable substitute for Mars (canals) but for Earth you need a smoother ball... with puddles on the surface for the oceans... and it needs to be really cold at the ends. Getting there, but you really don't know which variables are crucial until you try harder for verisimilitude - like the 911 guy with the chicken wire and cement blocks.
Thanks Thomas!
Another flaw, true, but more opportunities for grant money...
Your suggestions of "puddles on the surface and cold at the ends" will require a really big budget. Now I will have to go to NASA.
If they refuse to fund my research, it's obviously because they don't want me to prove the landings were fake!
Freakin' briliant!
Ha ha! I can't talk I'm laughing so damn hard.
The rocket's far too big, but otherwise this strikes me as excellent science in the Spooked911 tradition!
Pat from Screw Loose Change
Hi Pat,
My original version was to flick a speck of dust with tweezers at the "Moon", to try and get the relative sizes right. However, I don't own any tweezers (back to the budget thing) and dust doesn't really show in photographs.
i spammo the magnificent, famed 711 researcher and founder of 711 porker for truth institute intend to file a , classless action suit, againt everyone involved
Well, that bottle and balloon experiment sure has me convinced. That was scientific and well done. I believe Goddard used bottles too in his making of rockets. And NASA of course used the same bottle and balloon experiment and decided it was impossible to land on the moon and thus faked the whole landing.
For you idiots out there who believe this, it's called sarcasm.
And sarcasm is the lowest form of satire - as opposed to what this so obviously is - a parody. Remo, you might want to read other posts, and follow the links.
Theo should start putting warnings on posts such as this so they don't go over people's heads.
well, I'm going to quit reading all other comments except my own.
What do you call that?
Observational Selection. (Though perhaps justfified.) Of course, if you are only reading your own comments, you won't have read this one...
hehe
What about the concrete dust in those moon landing photos? Definetely caused by controlled demolition.
Wrong barbecue sauce. Duh. What kind of scientist are you?
For the more accurate earth model, you could try freezing a waterballoon, cutting the balloon off the ice ball, then using a hairdryer to make it more melty in the middle for the puddle effect.
The added benefit to this is that you'll have a ready supply of water for when you start throwing flaming sparkling BBQ sauce bottles around the house. Potentially risky, but hey, it's the price of science.
Hmmm. I see some minor flaws in your experiemnt. May I make some observations/corrections?
1. You have launched the rocket from a basketball deigned to be the earth. Every one KNOWS the earth is flat. Ergo, your model is flawed.
2. Was the barbeque bottle full, or empty? As everyone knows, the inertial effects of the liquid in the bottle must be accounted for in the docking procedure especially since NASA apparently used solid propellent. If it was empty, you will need to repeat the experiment with something like salt in the bottle.
3. The bottle rocket concept is flawed in that you had one of the wings on backwards for crying out loud. And then you claim this did not matter? There is no symmetry on the craft! How would you account for this if you extrapolated to a full size rocket. See point #1 and repeat. This would explain the failure to land by itself.
4. Were the labels on each of the items the appropriate size? Rand McNally and Google earth both have the earth labelled differently. Which one is the correct one? I suggest that you place the earth label in the lower left hand corner of the PIECE OF PAPER that models the earth to more accurately model the actual item. See point #1 and repeat the experiment.
5. The method of initial propulsion; was it overhand or underhand? See, an underhanded approach by NASA would have resulted in an orbit from bottom to top of the moon. An overhanded approach would have resulted in an orbit from top to bottom. Since you were trying to land on the TOP of the moon and failed, I JUST BET that you used an underhanded approach. (*sigh*...amateurs)
Its obvious your experiment is full of flaws. Next time, spend a little more time on the research, and a little less on the model accuracy.
This is probably the wrong thread to be a stickler for detail, but NASA did not use solid propellant for primary thrust. All three stages of the Saturn V booster (S-IC, S-II and S-IVB) used LOX and the last two used LH2. The CM and LM crew-habited vehicles also used LOX propellant. Solids were only used for stage separation retros.
So the liquid propellant in the barbecue bottle is at least close to the mark. Sorta. Well not really.
On the plus side, the "Earth" was stationary. And since we live in a geocentric universe, that part was correct. LMAO
I saw the pictures and immediately recognized the problem.
It's the rocket!
The one you used is completly wrong, it should have been a "coke" bottle.
After all everyone knows that "Things go better with Coke!"
Allan W Janssen is the author of the book "The Plain Truth About God-101.com" (what the church doesn't want you to know!) at www.God-101.com
Your experiment was worthwhile, but unnecessary. You could have simply thrown a glass bottle of paint into the air and watch it shatter against the firmament covering the flat Earth. (I don't know how high the firmament is, but it can't be too high. The idea that the firmament (or "sky") is high in the air is promoted by evil satanic atheists. (The ESAs are very convincing with their satanic steel birds that fly along it, but I'm not convinced. I went into one of them once, and I can assure you— it's all a satanic act of trickery. I can tell it's satanic because the food in them was horrible, and I wasn't allowed into first class. I'm a child of God, you sinner! I can ride in first class with an economy-class ticket if I want to!)
Post a Comment