Flame in rocket exhuast varies depending on ambient pressure and fuel type.
Go to SpaceX’s web site (http://www.spacex.com) and check out the launch videos for the Falcon 9. As the booster ascends into the upper atmosphere, the ambient pressure drops and the exhause plume expands dramatically and becomes much less flamey; by the time the first stage shuts down, the exhaust plume is several times wider than the stage and there’s almost no visible flame. When the second stage lights, you see very little flame at the edges of the engine bell. Both of those stages use RP-1 (kerosene) for fuel and liquid oxygen for the oxidizer, so they burn a little “dirty” and there are a lot of particulates in the exhaust (the smoke).
The engines on the LM used aerozine 50 as the fuel and nitrogen tetroxide as the oxidizer, which burn relatively clean, which can sort of be seen in the image below:
http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=24404
And again, since the engine is burning in a vacuum, the exhaust plume expands immediately, so you don’t get any visible flame. I don’t remember offhand if its the video for 15 or 16, but one of them shows plenty of dust and debris being kicked up when the ascent stage clears the descent stage platform.
More Comments by jfb
His name was Ed Fendell, a controller in Houston in charge the remotely-controlled camera on the LRV.
Yes, he had to take the signal delay into account – he had to anticipate the liftoff and rate of ascent. …
It doesn’t have to be pretty to work.
The foil acted as a thermal blanket, reflecting as much of the sunlight as possible to keep the base of the LM from overheating. The foil was only about 125 microns thick, …
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence
The blueprints *weren’t* destroyed; they’re on file at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, AL. Not that it matters; we couldn’t build the Saturn V today if we wanted to, because most of the technology it used is …
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – More Photographic Proof
Did you know that many of the people involved in the moon landing died from a car crash?
Upwards of 90 people die *every day* in car crashes in the US; it’s not at all surprising that a lot people “involved …
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Camera Problems
It’s not a C, it’s an O.
And it *looks* like some kind of inclusion (a pebble embedded in a slightly softer matrix rock). It looks like the surrounding matrix has eroded a bit, leaving a small channel around the …
More Comments on Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence by jfb
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence
The blueprints *weren’t* destroyed; they’re on file at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, AL. Not that it matters; we couldn’t build the Saturn V today if we wanted to, because most of the technology it used is …
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence
Now let me prove to NASA how stupid they are.
Ah, proof. Would that more people understood what constituted “proof”. “You can’t explain that” isn’t proof, especially when, yes, we can explain it.
The most powerful telescope on earth can’t …
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence
This question has been answered several times by myself and others, but it basically boils down to 3 things, mainly:
1. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Everything boils down to money, as in, too goddamned much of. Manned lunar missions are fiendishly …
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence
Which tests? Citations, please.
The following report has been discussed elsewhere in the thread: http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/TRS/_techrep/CR188427.pdf
Here was the conclusion:
The effects of radiation for STS-48 are apparent in the final images produced
by the high speed (above 400 ASA) flight …
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence
However, they show flame even from a large distance. The NASA videos show no flame from a close distance
What do you mean by “large distance” and “close distance”? Are you talking about altitude?
My point with the Falcon …