Author Topic: Moon Walkers. (Read 88631 times)

picowatt · « **Reply #75 on:** January 25, 2016, 11:13:37 AM »

From: http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/Moon_landing_conspiracy#1._No_crater_under_the_landing_module

"No crater should be expected. The Descent Propulsion System was throttled very far down during the final stages of landing. The Lunar Module was no longer rapidly decelerating, so the descent engine only had to support the module's own weight, which by then was greatly diminished by the near exhaustion of the descent propellants, and the Moon's lower gravity. At the time of landing, the engine's thrust divided by the cross-sectional area of the engine bell is only about 1.5 PSI and that is reduced by the fact that the engine was in a vacuum, causing the exhaust to spread out.

Rocket exhaust gases expand much more rapidly after leaving the engine nozzle in a vacuum than in an atmosphere. The effect of an atmosphere on rocket plumes can be easily seen in launches from Earth; as the rocket rises through the thinning atmosphere, the exhaust plumes broaden very noticeably. Rocket engines designed for vacuum operation have longer bells than those designed for use at the Earth's surface, but they still cannot prevent this spreading. The Lunar Module's exhaust gases therefore expanded rapidly well beyond the landing site. Even if they hadn't, a simple calculation will show that the pressure at the end of the descent engine bell was much too low to carve out a crater. However, the descent engines did scatter a considerable amount of very fine surface dust as seen in 16mm movies of each landing, and as Neil Armstrong said as the landing neared ("...kicking up some dust..."). This significantly impaired visibility in the final stages of landing, and many mission commanders commented on it. Photographs do show slightly disturbed dust beneath the descent engine. And finally, the landers were generally moving horizontally as well as vertically until right before landing, so the exhaust would not be focused on any one surface spot for very long, and the compactness of the lunar soil below a thin surface layer of dust also make it virtually impossible for the descent engine to blast out a "crater". "

From: https://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2009/07/14/the-apollo-moon-hoax-why-is-there-no-blast-crater-under-the-lunar-module/

"First, some numbers: The lunar module (LM) descent stage engine had a maximum thrust of 9870 ft-lb, but this was throttleable back to a minimum of 1050 ft-lb. Sounds like a lot. But, the diameter of the nozzle was 63 inches, which is an area of about 3120 in2. Dividing this into the force (thrust) and you have a pressure range of 0.4-3.2 ft-lb/in2, otherwise known as psi. This is equivalent to the metric 2760-22,100 N/m2. But let’s stick with psi.

Anyone who owns a car probably knows that this is already significantly less than your tire pressure … by a factor of 10-100. When Apollo 11 landed, the thrust was down to about 1/3 of max, so down to around 1 psi.

Now let’s look at the average adult footstep: The average non-American weighs around 150 lbs. The average human footprint is around 50 in2 (don’t believe me? do the math yourself!). Divide the first into the second and you have the average human footstep exerting a simple 3 psi.

This is 3x larger than Apollo’s engines!!

The very fact that the astronauts walking on the moon did not create “blast craters” underneath them should be explanation enough as to why the engine did not create a blast crater under it — the pressure was simply too low."

http://braeunig.us/apollo/LMcrater.htm

tinman · « **Reply #76 on:** January 25, 2016, 01:43:51 PM »

Now we are going to look at the heat/thermal issue regarding space craft in space,and on the moon.

Im just going to pop this in here PW>
Quote: When I look at your flag closeup, all I can see is that it appears that it might be made from a woven material, or possibly even a non-woven material. Apparently, I do not have the same magic powers (or closed mindedness) as you do and cannot tell what that material is from just looking at the image.
Quote: You really should visit a shake and bake facility. Perhaps they don't exist in Australia. It is very apparent you are out of your league and know not of what you speak.
Quote: Actually, regarding the flags, it appears they were indeed off the shelf nylon flags:

Anyway,on to more of what i dont know what im talking about.
A quote from your self.
Quote 1 :During the trip to the moon, the CM and LM were slowly rotated to prevent heat from building excessively on the sun facing side. Because of this, the thin outer panels saw heating and cooling differentials that made them expand and contract.

Quote: You know so little about the thermodynamics of space or on the moon, but somehow feel qualified to make judgements regarding the hard work and engineering of those that do.

Quote: Do you believe the space shuttle or the ISS were/are real?
I have already answered this on a number of occasions,but one more time for you.
Yes,as i have stated,i do believe in the ISS,and satellite's. I have held a piece of skylab in my own hand's. Many large parts of skylab fell to earth in a town called Esperance,which is where my wife and myself went for our holiday around this time last year-it is about 700km from my home town. I watched skylab fall to earth myself. Here is a bit of funny but true information in regards to that. The shire council or Esperance actually fined the US/NASA $400.00 for littering lol. The funnier thing is,the US government actually ignored the fine(being the arrogant bunch of pricks they are-with the !im to big! to be paying fines attitude)A radio station ended up collecting from the US public,and brought over the check them self 30 years later on the 30th anniversary . The pieces and original check(that was never cashed) is on display at the Esperance museum.
http://www.abc.net.au/local/photos/2009/07/09/2621733.htm
http://www.skymania.com/wp/2009/07/nasas-litter-bill-paid-30-years-on.html/691/

Anyway-back to the thermal issue.
Quote: if you are going to critique Apollo, or any other space related system, I think you should take the time to research just how it is done first.
Like with the flag issue?.
Quote: No, I am not kidding, you cannot tell what that material is just from looking at the image.
Seems i did though

The power of observation is a great thing to posses,along with the ability to visually recognize materials.
Quote: I have no idea what you are referring to. What is "termination of convection"? I stand behind my posts and will admit to any errors you point out. Please do quote a post. I recall you stating, regarding the vacuum of the moon, that heat can only flow via conduction and my response was "conduction to what?" and offered that conduction could be used to sink heat to the lunar surface, but that the lunar soil was a fairly poor conductor of heat. Is that the post you are referring to?
Yes,i have stated many time's now ,in regards to how would i get rid of the heat from the drive motors. Heat from the wheel motors(by way of conduction) could be dissipated through the aluminum,stainless steel,titanium wheels to the moons surface. As you have stated that the moons surface is a poor conductor of heat,we can now use that as a reference in the previous post i made in regards to the flag's,and how the link you posted in regards to the flags being blown down by the rocket engines,and lying on the moons surface.

Quote: Regarding how to get rid of heat in outer space:
Heat flows from higher temperatures to lower temperature.
In a vacuum, heat moves via radiation.
Here is where it starts to get good

Quote: What is the temperature of outer space? (hint: "Mars ain't the kind of place place to raise your kids, in fact its...")
What's mars got to do with the thermal values of the vacuum of space?
Mars has an atmosphere-->2.7% nitrogen, 95.3% carbon dioxide,and a small amount of other gasses.

http://www.space.com/21059-space-station-cooling-system-explained-infographic.html
Quote: Liquid ammonia circulates through the pipes, carrying waste heat from the solar panels to the photovoltaic radiator panels, where the heat escapes into space. This keeps the solar panels cool.
How nice for the solar panels

Quote: Here on Earth, if the surface temperature were +200C, the air temperature would be very hot indeed, because air is a pretty good conductor of heat, particularly when compared to a vacuum. Surely most are familiar with a vacuum thermos.
Surely most are familiar with a vacuum thermos

How and why dose a vacuum thermos work so well?-->How close to an absolute vacuum dose the average day vacuum thermos have compared to that of space?.
Now we have a look at dissipating heat by way of radiation.
Quote wikipedia-Thermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation generated by the thermal motion of charged particles in matter.
What about in space?- Quote NASA-You remember your college physics correctly. Space is a vacuum, and heat can only be exchanged through radiation. However, that is a quite powerful means of exchanging heat. Have you ever stood in front of a campfire on a very cold winter night? While facing the fire you may feel roasted in your face, while your back feels frigid. The fire radiates heat at you, and your back radiates heat into the cold night. Of course, the cold air around you plays a role, but if there is no wind, the major heat exchange is radiation.
Lol,great to see NASA use an example of heat radiation here on earth to explain heat radiation in the vacuum of space. But none the less,the good old vacuum thermos gives us many answers. Some will say that the radiated heat in the case of a vacuum thermos is decreased by way of the shiny surfaces the thermos is made from. I wounder how my vacuum thermos works so well with it's black plastic interior cell?. But anyway PW,you seem to think that the space craft is rotated in order to keep the temperature even,and to dissipate the heat that was collected by the side of the space craft facing the sun,but rotating that part of the space craft into the shaded side--is this correct?.

We know that at the earths surface,we get around 1320 watts per square meter of solar radiation energy,so how much per square meter would we see in space of solar energy hitting a solid object? I am unable to find a conclusive answer,as viewing many sites,i found many answers. NASA and wiki seem to both lean toward the earths surface receiving around 67% of the solar energy from the sun,due to the rest being deflected by both the atmosphere,and reflected by earth it self. But it would be safe to assume that there is more solar energy per meter square hitting an object in space,than there is hitting the earths surface. Knowing that,we can also assume that any object in space/or the part there of facing direct sunlight, would heat up far quicker than the same object/or part there of,facing the sun,here on earth. The question at hand now is-can that amount of heat be radiated away by means of radiation in space? We know it cannot be dissipated by means of induction or convection,so that leaves us with radiation. If radiation is so effective in the vacuum of space,then why dose a vacuum flask keep our coffee water so hot for so long?. I know you are going to make reference to the fact that it is the shiny reflective walls of the thermos that reduces the heat being radiated away from the water,but as i stated,my cheap vacuum flask with the black inner plastic shell still keeps my water hot for a long period of time. So this is telling us that the amount of heat that can be removed by way of radiation is very little in this case,and we also know that the value of the vacuum in the vacuum thermos is not going to be anywhere near the value of the vacuum of space.

We then have to ask what kind of temperature drop's would our space craft experience when on the shaded/shadowed side of the earth during it's orbit around the earth?. The temperature drop during night would be far more extreme on the moon-would it not?. But lets stick to the temperatures/thermal problem during the day on the moon.

I love this speech.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUx1SURbb3g
What are these protective layers he is talking about i wonder?.

Brad.

tinman · « **Reply #77 on:** January 25, 2016, 02:06:07 PM »

Quote from: picowatt on January 25, 2016, 11:13:37 AM

From:

Quote

"No crater should be expected. The Descent Propulsion System was throttled very far down during the final stages of landing. The Lunar Module was no longer rapidly decelerating, so the descent engine only had to support the module's own weight, which by then was greatly diminished by the near exhaustion of the descent propellants, and the Moon's lower gravity. At the time of landing, the engine's thrust divided by the cross-sectional area of the engine bell is only about 1.5 PSI and that is reduced by the fact that the engine was in a vacuum, causing the exhaust to spread out.

Rocket exhaust gases expand much more rapidly after leaving the engine nozzle in a vacuum than in an atmosphere. The effect of an atmosphere on rocket plumes can be easily seen in launches from Earth; as the rocket rises through the thinning atmosphere, the exhaust plumes broaden very noticeably. Rocket engines designed for vacuum operation have longer bells than those designed for use at the Earth's surface, but they still cannot prevent this spreading. The Lunar Module's exhaust gases therefore expanded rapidly well beyond the landing site. Even if they hadn't, a simple calculation will show that the pressure at the end of the descent engine bell was much too low to carve out a crater. However, the descent engines did scatter a considerable amount of very fine surface dust as seen in 16mm movies of each landing, and as Neil Armstrong said as the landing neared ("...kicking up some dust..."). This significantly impaired visibility in the final stages of landing, and many mission commanders commented on it. Photographs do show slightly disturbed dust beneath the descent engine. And finally, the landers were generally moving horizontally as well as vertically until right before landing, so the exhaust would not be focused on any one surface spot for very long, and the compactness of the lunar soil below a thin surface layer of dust also make it virtually impossible for the descent engine to blast out a "crater". "

No argument there PW-i can agree with that.

Quote

"First, some numbers: The lunar module (LM) descent stage engine had a maximum thrust of 9870 ft-lb, but this was throttleable back to a minimum of 1050 ft-lb.

I have read numbers closer to 2600lb's-but anyway.
http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/LMcrater.htm

Quote

Now let’s look at the average adult footstep: The average non-American weighs around 150 lbs. The average human footprint is around 50 in2 (don’t believe me? do the math yourself!). Divide the first into the second and you have the average human footstep exerting a simple 3 psi.

This is 3x larger than Apollo’s engines!!

The very fact that the astronauts walking on the moon did not create “blast craters” underneath them should be explanation enough as to why the engine did not create a blast crater under it — the pressure was simply too low."

As i said-i have no problem with this explanation in regards to no blast crater.
But you did not explain as to how the ascent modules rocket engine managed to knock down the flag's ?. Or why the sharp/jagged dirt particles traveling at over 3600KPH did no damage what so ever to the landers feet and leg foil protection-or why they are spotlessly clean.

Brad.

tinman · « **Reply #78 on:** January 25, 2016, 02:26:29 PM »

I will throw this in here,as i find it interesting.
When asked why the flag flapped about,as if blowing in the breeze,we often hear the story about how the flag is made of an aluminum composite material,or some other type of material you mentioned earlier on PW,and due to the stiffness of that material,the flags seem'd to wave around as if they were being blown by wind. But the movement of the flags was due to the astronauts trying to twist the flag poles into the lunar surface,and also the fact that the flag poles were quite springy . But as we now know that the flags were just !off the shelf! nylon flags,do these reasons for the flags waving around still hold true?. Well we could say yes if the astronauts were still twisting the poles into the ground,or the springing of the poles had still not settled--the believers always seem to use these video's to explain or dismiss away the movement of the flags.
We also know that there is no atmosphere on the moon,and that means that the flags should not be disturbed by an astronaut bouncing past the flag without physical contact.
I am wondering as to what you have to say about the video below from the Apollo 15 mission.
Watch carefully from :32 to :40,and then from 2:35 to 2:55. At 2:35 when the astronaut bounces past the flag,and clearly at some distance away from the flag so as no physical contact is made,you can clearly see the flag being pulled toward the astronaut,and this clearly shows a vacuum/pressure drop being created behind the astronaut-the same effect you would see in an environment that has an atmosphere.
How dose this happen in the vacuum environment of the moon?.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y

Brad

tinman · « **Reply #79 on:** January 25, 2016, 02:40:43 PM »

It is good to see some true experts in the field of physics and photography are analyzing the photograph.
The picture in question regarding the hot spot from artificial lighting attached.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYnIvrDlhb4

MileHigh · « **Reply #80 on:** January 25, 2016, 05:21:36 PM »

Quote

At 2:35 when the astronaut bounces past the flag,and clearly at some distance away from the flag so as no physical contact is made,you can clearly see the flag being pulled toward the astronaut,and this clearly shows a vacuum/pressure drop being created behind the astronaut-the same effect you would see in an environment that has an atmosphere.
How dose this happen in the vacuum environment of the moon?.

It's the old cliche that common sense is not so common.

The moon conspiracy theorists get in a tizzy about there not being a blast crater because there is "supposed" to be a blast crater. The problem is that they don't even think about the issue, all that they say is that there is "supposed" to be a blast crater without properly analyzing the situation. One of the many reasons for sending probes to the moon before the Apollo landings was to specifically check into the nature of the surface to make sure that manned landing craft would have a firm footing and not sink into a 15-foot-deep layer of fluffy dust.

Then a flag that is standing up vertically bends in the force of the exhaust gasses when the upper stage blasts off? Horror of horrors! This must be true: Bending flag pole = blast crater, bending flag pole = blast crater. Don't think! Just repeat it over and over, "Bending flag pole = blast crater." WHERE IS THE BLAST CRATER THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE THERE?

Why did the flag waver starting at 2:35? Why why why why why? Flag waver = Hollywood stage, flag waver = Hollywood stage. Don't think! Just repeat it over and over, "Flag waver = Hollywood stage."

I am just flabbergasted at your display of lack of common sense. Don't think, just say whatever you want to say to force your square truth into a round hole. Welcome to North Korea. DON'T THINK.

picowatt · « **Reply #81 on:** January 25, 2016, 06:20:13 PM »

Quote from: tinman on January 25, 2016, 01:43:51 PM

We know that at the earths surface,we get around 1320 watts per square meter of solar radiation energy,so how much per square meter would we see in space of solar energy hitting a solid object? I am unable to find a conclusive answer,as viewing many sites,i found many answers. NASA and wiki seem to both lean toward the earths surface receiving around 67% of the solar energy from the sun,due to the rest being deflected by both the atmosphere,and reflected by earth it self. But it would be safe to assume that there is more solar energy per meter square hitting an object in space,than there is hitting the earths surface. Knowing that,we can also assume that any object in space/or the part there of facing direct sunlight, would heat up far quicker than the same object/or part there of,facing the sun,here on earth. The question at hand now is-can that amount of heat be radiated away by means of radiation in space? We know it cannot be dissipated by means of induction or convection,so that leaves us with radiation. If radiation is so effective in the vacuum of space,then why dose a vacuum flask keep our coffee water so hot for so long?. I know you are going to make reference to the fact that it is the shiny reflective walls of the thermos that reduces the heat being radiated away from the water,but as i stated,my cheap vacuum flask with the black inner plastic shell still keeps my water hot for a long period of time. So this is telling us that the amount of heat that can be removed by way of radiation is very little in this case,and we also know that the value of the vacuum in the vacuum thermos is not going to be anywhere near the value of the vacuum of space.

We then have to ask what kind of temperature drop's would our space craft experience when on the shaded/shadowed side of the earth during it's orbit around the earth?. The temperature drop during night would be far more extreme on the moon-would it not?. But lets stick to the temperatures/thermal problem during the day on the moon.

Tinman,

You stated that we were to keep it civil on the first page of this thread. It did not take long for you to turn this thread into an opportunity for you to just insult all things NASA. If you wish to discuss some point relevant to the topic, I will try to do so as I have time, but I will not participate in a thread whose purpose it is to just scoff at and make fun of the hard work of a lot scientists, engineers, and technicians, particularly when those doing so do not understand the function or engineering of what it is they are making fun of.

I am not an expert on Apollo, spaceflight, image analysis, or thermodynamics. I have not, and would not, ever claim to be. My knowledge on those subject matters is quite basic and only skims the surface. However, having worked in aerospace and defense, I do know a few things from having "rubbed shoulders" with engineers and scientists proficient in those fields.

Quite often the greatest mistakes one makes is believing that they have all the answers, seeing only what they believe to be obvious, and not seeking out those with more expertise regarding a given task or solution. For example, as I have previously stated, if you want to know what the exact temperature of a given object is in either space or on the surface of the moon, the answer involves many variables and requires a lot of calculations, and I would refer you to a qualified thermodynamic engineer for that answer.

Also, I am not going to have the time to read thru pages of rambling posts with red highlights at the rate you apparently want to do so all of a sudden. Please try to be a bit more succinct and ask a specific question.

For example, in the above post of yours, you seem to be asking and answering your own questions so I really don't know what, if anything, that it is you are asking. Do you or do you not know how a vacuum thermos works? From your post I cannot tell and will attempt to explain it to you if you do not.

As well, you discuss spacecraft in space and seem to be attempting to arrive at the amount of heat received by the craft using solar flux per square meter or something. The amount of heat received by any object in the vacuum of space, its temperature rise, and its ability to radiate away heat, depend as much or more so on the properties of the object upon which any solar flux impinges.

From your above post, I am unsure what it is you are asking or stating regarding the solar flux and spacecraft.

PW

Johan_1955 · « **Reply #82 on:** January 25, 2016, 06:29:03 PM »

Horizontal moving like a aerial tram:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTBIr65cL_E

Johan_1955 · « **Reply #83 on:** January 25, 2016, 06:33:33 PM »

Quote from: MileHigh on January 25, 2016, 05:21:36 PM

It's the old cliche that common sense is not so common.

The moon conspiracy theorists get in a tizzy about there not being a blast crater because there is "supposed" to be a blast crater. The problem is that they don't even think about the issue, all that they say is that there is "supposed" to be a blast crater without properly analyzing the situation. One of the many reasons for sending probes to the moon before the Apollo landings was to specifically check into the nature of the surface to make sure that manned landing craft would have a firm footing and not sink into a 15-foot-deep layer of fluffy dust.

Then a flag that is standing up vertically bends in the force of the exhaust gasses when the upper stage blasts off? Horror of horrors! This must be true: Bending flag pole = blast crater, bending flag pole = blast crater. Don't think! Just repeat it over and over, "Bending flag pole = blast crater." WHERE IS THE BLAST CRATER THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE THERE?

Why did the flag waver starting at 2:35? Why why why why why? Flag waver = Hollywood stage, flag waver = Hollywood stage. Don't think! Just repeat it over and over, "Flag waver = Hollywood stage."

I am just flabbergasted at your display of lack of common sense. Don't think, just say whatever you want to say to force your square truth into a round hole. Welcome to North Korea. DON'T THINK.

DON'T THINK, keeping my job from your TAX! ;-))

picowatt · « **Reply #84 on:** January 25, 2016, 06:59:36 PM »

Quote from: tinman on January 25, 2016, 02:40:43 PM

It is good to see some true experts in the field of physics and photography are analyzing the photograph.
The picture in question regarding the hot spot from artificial lighting attached.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYnIvrDlhb4

I watched the first part of the analysis, up to where the analyst states that the light source was likely 9.4 to 14 inches to the right of the camera, "an ideal position for an artificial light source" he says and then switching to the shows announcer who states something like, there's your proof.....

Here is a description of the image:

"AS11-40-5866 (20 July 1969) --- Astronaut Edwin E. Aldrin Jr., lunar module pilot, egresses the Lunar Module (LM) "Eagle" and begins to descend the steps of the LM ladder as he prepares to walk on the moon. This photograph was taken by astronaut Neil A. Armstrong, commander, with a 70mm lunar surface camera during the Apollo 11 extravehicular activity (EVA). While astronauts Armstrong and Aldrin descended in the LM "Eagle" to explore the moon, astronaut Michael Collins, command module pilot, remained with the Command and Service Modules (CSM) "Columbia" in lunar orbit. Photo credit: NASA"

So, an astronaut wearing a very reflective white spacesuit is holding a camera and snaps a picture. An image expert says there is a light source 9-14 inches to the right of the the camera. Considering the width of the spacesuits, it is very likely that the light source was reflected light from Armstrong's suit.

tinman · « **Reply #85 on:** January 25, 2016, 07:06:01 PM »

Quote from: picowatt on January 25, 2016, 06:20:13 PM

Tinman,

PW

Quote

You stated that we were to keep it civil on the first page of this thread. It did not take long for you to turn this thread into an opportunity for you to just insult all things NASA. If you wish to discuss some point relevant to the topic, I will try to do so as I have time, but I will not participate in a thread whose purpose it is to just scoff at and make fun of the hard work of a lot scientists, engineers, and technicians, particularly when those doing so do not understand the function or engineering of what it is they are making fun of.

The quote from my opening thread.
I would hope that(although you have the right to disagree with other's)out right abuse of other members that post on this thread is avoided.
You once again made an incorrect judgement about me PW,as it clearly states!!other members!. You only feel i am scoffing at NASA because i do not agree with you or believe what NASA tells us.
Maybe go back,and re read the thread,and it will become apparent that you were actually the first to start throwing insults toward me. Thing's like-you think im delusional ,and i dont do any research before i make comment's--like the flag thing for instance,only to find out(once you did some research of your own) that i was right. This happens time and time again in many thread's,as it is here--just because i do not believe in what you believe in.

Quote

I am not an expert on Apollo, spaceflight, image analysis, or thermodynamics. I have not, and would not, ever claim to be. My knowledge on those subject matters is quite basic and only skims the surface. However, having worked in aerospace and defense, I do know a few things from having "rubbed shoulders" with engineers and scientists proficient in those fields.

The power of observation,research,using information available,and a bit of common sense,go's a long way. From this we can start to determine the thermal properties on the moon surface and surrounding environment. Now we know that the flags were !off the shelf! nylon flags(much to MH dismay),and not some sort of aluminum composite material,we then only have to find out as to what temperatures the nylon material can endure. As it turns out,not very much at all before it starts to shrivel up and melt.The link below seem'd fitting

http://homeguides.sfgate.com/properly-wash-nylon-flags-washing-machine-24900.html

You will note it quote's --but direct heat can cause it to melt. Nylon flags are usually machine washable, but care must be taken to prevent the colors from bleeding and to avoid heat damage.

From the information provided from NASA,we know that those flags were in direct sun light for many days. So if these !off the shelf! nylon flags have a very low tolerance to heat,how can they survive for days on the moon,if the temperature of objects in direct sun light rises above 150*C ?

Quote

Quite often the greatest mistakes one makes is believing that they have all the answers, seeing only what they believe to be obvious, and not seeking out those with more expertise regarding a given task or solution. For example, as I have previously stated, if you want to know what the exact temperature of a given object is in either space or on the surface of the moon, the answer involves many variables and requires a lot of calculations, and I would refer you to a qualified thermodynamic engineer for that answer

.

But we already have these answers PW-NASA has provided them. They had to go as far as putting cooling systems in the space suit's,to keep the astronauts cool. Even the batteries in the lunar modules had insulation covering them to try and keep the heat down. Page after page on the net tells us that objects in direct sun light on the moon will see temperatures of 150* plus--but the nylon flag survives for days--even the dark blue square in the corner,and we know dark colors do not reflect heat very well,and that is the reason the astronauts suits are white.

Quote

Also, I am not going to have the time to read thru pages of rambling posts with red highlights at the rate you apparently want to do so all of a sudden. Please try to be a bit more succinct and ask a specific question.

Some time's i get a lot of time to research and post my finding's,as well as ask questions. And some times i do not. So i make the best of it while i have the time to do so.

Quote

For example, in the above post of yours, you seem to be asking and answering your own questions so I really don't know what, if anything, that it is you are asking. Do you or do you not know how a vacuum thermos works? From your post I cannot tell and will attempt to explain it to you if you do not.

Yes PW-i know how a vacuum thermos works. The combination of the vacuum and reflective surface of the inner liner of the flask ,eliminates the 3 ways heat can be transfer'd from the source to the sink.

Quote

As well, you discuss spacecraft in space and seem to be attempting to arrive at the amount of heat received by the craft using solar flux per square meter or something. The amount of heat received by any object in the vacuum of space, its temperature rise, and its ability to radiate away heat, depend as much or more so on the properties of the object upon which any solar flux impinges.
From your above post, I am unsure what it is you are asking or stating regarding the solar flux and spacecraft.

I am well aware that the higher the reflectivity of the surface,the less the amount of heat it receives
or absorbs from the sun. I was more interested in your comment about the rotating of the space craft to aid in the cooling of that space craft.

Brad

tinman · « **Reply #86 on:** January 25, 2016, 07:28:34 PM »

Quote from: MileHigh on January 25, 2016, 05:21:36 PM

It's the old cliche that common sense is not so common.

The moon conspiracy theorists get in a tizzy about there not being a blast crater because there is "supposed" to be a blast crater. The problem is that they don't even think about the issue, all that they say is that there is "supposed" to be a blast crater without properly analyzing the situation. One of the many reasons for sending probes to the moon before the Apollo landings was to specifically check into the nature of the surface to make sure that manned landing craft would have a firm footing and not sink into a 15-foot-deep layer of fluffy dust.

Then a flag that is standing up vertically bends in the force of the exhaust gasses when the upper stage blasts off? Horror of horrors! This must be true: Bending flag pole = blast crater, bending flag pole = blast crater. Don't think! Just repeat it over and over, "Bending flag pole = blast crater." WHERE IS THE BLAST CRATER THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE THERE?

Why did the flag waver starting at 2:35? Why why why why why? Flag waver = Hollywood stage, flag waver = Hollywood stage. Don't think! Just repeat it over and over, "Flag waver = Hollywood stage."

I am just flabbergasted at your display of lack of common sense. Don't think, just say whatever you want to say to force your square truth into a round hole. Welcome to North Korea. DON'T THINK.

MH
Your idiotic posts are increasing daily.
You say things like this when you have no explanation to questions asked by others-->you are starting to make your self look silly

In stead of just rambling on about nothing,and posting idiotic post like the above ,have the balls to answer the questions.

So here are my questions to you MH,as it seems that you would like to be an active member in this thread.
1- Why dose the flag start waving around when the astronaut bounce past it,and it clearly being seen that he is to far away from it for any physical contact.
2- How is it that the !off the shelf! nylon flag can endure such extreme temperature on the moon for days on end,when you cannot even wash them in hot water.
3- How are the flag's blown over by the jet thrust from the ascent module,and yet no blast crater from the decent module. Just in case you missed it,i totally agree with the reasons given as to why there is no blast crater<-- just so as you know,and dont go making a fool of your self again.
4- I provided the link where careful calculations were made to explain as to why there is no blast crater (which i am quite happy with),and during those calculation,he was able to determine how much soil/sharp jagged rock's,and dust was ejected out from under the rockets nozzle. He was also
able to determine the speed at which that ejected matter was traveling,which was around 3600KPH. So knowing this,can you explain as to why no damage from these high speed particles is seen on the landers foot pad's and leg's?. And why are the bowl shaped foot pads spotlessly clean--not a sign of dust,dirt or small rocks to be seen in the foot bowls at all.

Im guessing that you will not attempt to answer the question's,but more so just carry on as you did above. The need to believe is strong in you MH

One must put aside the books in situations like this-right?.

Brad

conradelektro · « **Reply #87 on:** January 25, 2016, 08:22:36 PM »

Now I got it, finally I am convinced. They have done it, the clever ones who look through the moon hoax, the even more clever ones, who know that free energy exists but is forbidden by the bad ones. They have provided so many clever arguments that I have to run over to their side of reality.

And now that I am saved from the evil of the world, the good things will start. The clever ones will teach me the real science, they will give me free energy, the aliens and knowledge beyond my wildest dreams.

The clever ones, who look through all hoaxes and bad things the government or the illuminate do, will set me free in a new world, where the truth will prevail, where the good knowledge will feed me and warm me in the winter.

With the so far suppressed knowledge of the clever ones we will travel to the stars and solve the problems on earth which are of course caused by the ones who do not believe in the clever ones.

The clever ones do not study science, they see the truth of the universe just by sucking their fingers and toes, it comes to them easily. Only dumb ones have to work hard to understand nature.

Wow, I have missed the good life which will now begin. Thank you clever ones for enlightening me.

In awe, Conrad

MileHigh · « **Reply #88 on:** January 25, 2016, 09:02:54 PM »

I guess the satire is flying over your head just like many technical elements of the moon shot that you attempted to discuss flew over your head due to abject ignorance coupled with a double-shot of hubris and failure to think past one step.

You want an explanation for the "moved" or "missing" lunar module in that two picture set you posted? The two pictures were taken from two different positions and the mountains off in the distance were far enough away to be at "infinity" such that they will not appreciably change between the two pictures. The lunar module did not move, the photographer moved. You have to be a rocket scientist and have the good common sense wits of a 12-year-old to figure that one out. But not the poor moon conspiracy theorists, they can't even figure out the shadows in some pictures or account for the high-reflectivity white space suits or the extra illumination coming from the reflections off of the lunar soil. It makes you think that there should be a "dummies book," - "Common Sense Physics and Logical Thought Processes for Moon Conspiracy Theorist Dummies."

Quote

1- Why dose the flag start waving around when the astronaut bounce past it,and it clearly being seen that he is to far away from it for any physical contact.

Because the 170-pound astronaut and the 120-pound space suit form a 290-pound "ground thumper" that hits the ground for every bounce. That makes the ground shake, a small portion of the energy from the bounce makes the flag pole rattle.

And the frustrating part is that you never even considered this possibility, just like many of the other poor hapless moon conspiracy theorists. They desperately need that "dummies" book.

The answer to that one is staring you in the face. BTW, it's "does" and "too."

Quote

2- How is it that the !off the shelf! nylon flag can endure such extreme temperature on the moon for days on end,when you cannot even wash them in hot water.

How do you know it's off-the-shelf? You don't. You are failing to think past one step. Are you an expert on nylon and other plastics when it comes to heat resistance and melting point? No? I didn't think so. Neither am I. Are there different formulations of nylon that have different properties including the melting point? You don't know? I don't know myself either.

So we choose to be stupid and just blindly assume that regular vanilla run of the mill nylon was used for the flag. That makes us comfortably numb. It adds to the moon conspiracy. Stay away from that "dummies" book! We only have to think one step, and then we can just go back to sleep.

Funny though, the I have heard the term "high temperature resistance plastic" before. Hmmmm.... makes you think, but only if your mind is capable of thinking past one step.

Quote

3- How are the flag's blown over by the jet thrust from the ascent module,and yet no blast crater from the decent module. Just in case you missed it,i totally agree with the reasons given as to why there is no blast crater<-- just so as you know,and dont go making a fool of your self again.

Well, you are making a fool of yourself by contradicting yourself in the question.

The question itself is a retarded moon conspiracy theorist question. This is a failure to think: If the flag is blown over then the descent stage must have created a blast crater. There is no relationship at all between the flag blowing over and a possible blast crater, NONE. Hence my satire.

Quote

4- I provided the link where careful calculations were made to explain as to why there is no blast crater (which i am quite happy with),and during those calculation,he was able to determine how much soil/sharp jagged rock's,and dust was ejected out from under the rockets nozzle. He was also
able to determine the speed at which that ejected matter was traveling,which was around 3600KPH. So knowing this,can you explain as to why no damage from these high speed particles is seen on the landers foot pad's and leg's?. And why are the bowl shaped foot pads spotlessly clean--not a sign of dust,dirt or small rocks to be seen in the foot bowls at all.

For starters you don't know if there was or was not a fine layer of dust or fine damage on the foot pads and legs. More importantly, there was no atmosphere, and no interaction between the exhaust gasses and an atmosphere which would create an opportunity for gaseous swirls and eddies carrying moon dust and rocks back to the legs and foot pads. The exhaust gasses just spread out in all directions in the vacuum with no dust kick-back at all. Everything just spread out in all directions in something akin to a nearly straight laminar flow in a radial pattern.

One more time we are back to the moon conspiracy theorists' failure to think past one step. "There is supposed to be dust on the landing pads because that's how rockets act on Earth." One more time, this is on the level of the common sense of an astute 15-year-old that understands that the LEM is landing in a vacuum. You can even see it when Neil Armstrong says, "kicking up some dist," all of the dust is shooting straight away in a nearly straight laminar flow.

Quote

Im guessing that you will not attempt to answer the question's,but more so just carry on as you did above.

Well I'm calling BS on that.

I will tell you what else is a double-dose of BS: "Somebody that disagrees with me is biased and therefore their opinions don't count." That is a retarded statement.

You have tripped up half a dozen times in your debate with PW, really "pregnant pause" displays of ignorance. Instead of acknowledging your mistakes and/or ignorance, you just soldier on and absorb the new enlightening information without saying anything. You may think that is the best course of action but it's not at all and just hurts your credibility.

I saw the moon landings as a kid and the physics and geopolitics all make sense. The "fake moon landings" is just another conspiracy cult by people that seemingly lack common sense or they suspend their common sense because they want to spin their tale because they have an agenda. There is a conspiracy theorist cottage industry, and you can milk some decent money from the moon conspiracy.

MileHigh

picowatt · « **Reply #89 on:** January 25, 2016, 09:05:03 PM »

Quote from: tinman on January 25, 2016, 07:06:01 PM

The quote from my opening thread.
I would hope that(although you have the right to disagree with other's)out right abuse of other members that post on this thread is avoided.

Excuse my paraphrase of your comment, but I will also not participate or condone derogatory remarks toward LRO or NASA engineers who are not here to defend themselves.

Quote

You once again made an incorrect judgement about me PW,as it clearly states!!other members!. You only feel i am scoffing at NASA because i do not agree with you or believe what NASA tells us.
Maybe go back,and re read the thread,and it will become apparent that you were actually the first to start throwing insults toward me. Thing's like-you think im delusional ,and i dont do any research before i make comment's--like the flag thing for instance,only to find out(once you did some research of your own) that i was right. This happens time and time again in many thread's,as it is here--just because i do not believe in what you believe in.

I will not bother to quote the derogatory comments you have made regarding the hard work of many NASA or NASA subcontractor engineers. Suffice to say you were doing so. You apparently believe yourself expert enough to analyze all things NASA and prove fraud, as of course one must be to do so, so when questions are made in an accusing manner regarding lunar night, non-inflated spacesuits, or comments deriding the LEM's construction, it does not show off the degree of expertise one would have expected.

I apologize for losing my cool, but I am not here for and will not condone an all out NASA bashing, particularly with regard to the extreme efforts of those involved in the project. Even now, using US citizen tax dollars, NASA is openly providing data from satellites that are doing pure science. Unless we are to believe that all the planetary missions and exploration satellites are as well fake, NASA, and the US taxpayers should be given some credit for the advancement of science, and the expertise achieved in spaceflight.

Quote

From the information provided from NASA,we know that those flags were in direct sun light for many days. So if these !off the shelf! nylon flags have a very low tolerance to heat,how can they survive for days on the moon,if the temperature of objects in direct sun light rises above 150*C ?

We do not know what temperature the flags reach. Determining that would in itself be a complicated calculation requiring a thermodynamic engineer. The direct flux, the indirect flux, the reflectivity and absorption characteristics of the flag at various wavelengths are some of the variables involved. In reality, we have no way of knowing what temperature the flags reach during lunar day without knowing the variables and performing the analysis. We are likely better suited to determine the minimum temperature reached during lunar night.

With regard to the survival of the flags, more concerning is the extreme UV flux they have been exposed to. But again, we need to know the absorption/reflectance properties of the flag with regard to UV to make a model or discuss the issue with any degree of certainty.

Surely at the least they have become very brittle, which may also affect their response to temperature extremes.

Quote

But we already have these answers PW-NASA has provided them. They had to go as far as putting cooling systems in the space suit's,to keep the astronauts cool. Even the batteries in the lunar modules had insulation covering them to try and keep the heat down. Page after page on the net tells us that objects in direct sun light on the moon will see temperatures of 150* plus--but the nylon flag survives for days--even the dark blue square in the corner,and we know dark colors do not reflect heat very well,and that is the reason the astronauts suits are white.

While I agree that dark colored objects generally absorb more heat than lighter colored objects, what the flags look like in visible light is not necessarily how they may appear when viewed at IR and UV wavelengths.

Also, do not forget that the astronauts themselves are a heat source. Even here on Earth and inside air conditioned test facilities, the astronauts would overheat in the well insulated suits requiring an umbilical for connection to a cooling unit. They also had to use portable cooling/breathing systems while being transported to the pad prior to launch.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Moon Walkers. (Read 88631 times)

picowatt

Re: Moon Walkers.

tinman

Re: Moon Walkers.

tinman

Re: Moon Walkers.

tinman

Re: Moon Walkers.

tinman

Re: Moon Walkers.

MileHigh

Re: Moon Walkers.

picowatt

Re: Moon Walkers.

Johan_1955

Re: Moon Walkers.

Johan_1955

Re: Moon Walkers.

picowatt

Re: Moon Walkers.

tinman

Re: Moon Walkers.

tinman

Re: Moon Walkers.

conradelektro

Re: Moon Walkers.

MileHigh

Re: Moon Walkers.

picowatt

Re: Moon Walkers.