Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy
Gravity powered devices => Gravity powered devices => Topic started by: tinman on January 22, 2016, 10:30:29 AM
-
Well this seems like the closest category i could find to place this topic-->that being-did we go to the moon in 1969.
A long debated question,with many different views on what did and did not happen in regards to the Apollo missions. The best way we can do this ,is by doing what we do with any other extraordinary claim here. We use the available evidence to determine the truth.
Now we could start simply by looking at the telemetry data of the first mission,but unfortunately the 14000 reels of data are missing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9bkxbwsc-Q.
Maybe we could start with the Van Allen belt's ?,only problem there is,in 1969 NASA (or anyone else) had no accurate information about the belt's,and how deadly they !may! be to human's.
It would seem they chose to send the astronauts through them anyway,and even then,some of the astronauts didnt even know they were going to ,or did go through them. One would think that these highly trained men would know everything they needed to know on such a large and dangerous mission.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrxpqn3Gb20
But it seems that NASA engineers know now that the belts are very dangerous,and are yet to develop space craft that can protect humans that travel through them.
Remember,the people being interviewed are the current ISS commander,and a NASA engineer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51DED8dcNkA
A video from the NASA web site-->what makes the Van Allen belts so dangerous. See video-sciencecasts-escape of the destructive electron's.
https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html
So why have we not been back to the moon ?.
Maybe cost is the reason/. Some info on the orion project.
Quote: NASA officials set April 2023 as the timeframe when they expect the Orion spacecraft to be ready to host humans on a flight around the moon.
April 2023 ::)-->why so long. They managed to get man on the moon much quicker back in the 60's.
Quote: NASA says it needs another $6.77 billion to complete development of Orion through 2023, atop $10.5 billion spent on the spacecraft since the project dawned with the Constellation program, an initiative started in 2005 under the Bush administration.That brings the program’s total projected cost to more than $17 billion through the first flight with astronauts.
17 billion dollars before the first maned flight.
The cost of 1 single project is enough to eliminate world hunger >:(
How pathetic ::)
Anyway,that is my opening post for this 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. I would also hope that the evidence provided is what judgments are made from,and not the need to stick to what you need to believe in.
Brad.
-
First up
Who has any proof other than that supplied by NASA,that man walked on the moon?.
When i mean proof,i mean either photographic or video proof. Words mean nothing when extraordinary claims are made. This is the very same way we do it in regards to OU devices-->third party verification. Why should it be any different for the moon walkers?.
Some quote's by PW from the other thread this was being debated on.
Quote: So the LRO images are fake as well?
What LRO images?. All i have seen is blured rubbish,that in no way depics any landing craft left on the moon. Below is a pic that the LRO took of the surface of the moon. So enough with the resolving crap.
Quote: The Chinese imaging will eventually improve
The chinese rover has returned some very high res pictures of the moons surface. Not one that shows any evidence of the apollo missions.
To date,no other country has provided any evidence of the apollo landing's. In fact,NASA has not either.
Brad
-
The Netherlands are best friends with US!
So we did get a very special gift in the sixties from our liberating friends, only Russia did do the job:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8226075.stm
-
You are wasting your time Tinman. I do not understand very much about Neuro-Linguistic Programming but unfortunately it appears there is only a small percentage of the population who are not susceptible. Even extremely skeptical people like MH who can spot a scam from a Mile High, are able to believe in something that is completely implausible, without even being prepared to take a logical approach and question the facts. You need to understand that you can not debate the lunar landing with facts and data.
It appears once people have been programmed it is almost impossible to undo this level of conditioning. It is a bit like someone who believes in a religious deity, they will continue to believe in them even after the local priest has molested their children. Any person who had not been subjected to that level of cognitive programing would immediately realize they had been scammed and the entire church was established simply to steal peoples money and allow the leaders easy access to sexually assault their children. Yet they forgive them and the scam continues. Completely unexplainable.
-
First up
Who has any proof other than that supplied by NASA,that man walked on the moon?.
When i mean proof,i mean either photographic or video proof. Words mean nothing when extraordinary claims are made. This is the very same way we do it in regards to OU devices-->third party verification. Why should it be any different for the moon walkers?.
Some quote's by PW from the other thread this was being debated on.
Quote: So the LRO images are fake as well?
What LRO images?. All i have seen is blured rubbish,that in no way depics any landing craft left on the moon. Below is a pic that the LRO took of the surface of the moon. So enough with the resolving crap.
Can you provide some source data regarding the posted image? Your image does not look like an LRO image.
Quote: The Chinese imaging will eventually improve
The chinese rover has returned some very high res pictures of the moons surface. Not one that shows any evidence of the apollo missions.
To date,no other country has provided any evidence of the apollo landing's. In fact,NASA has not either.
The Chinese rover was/is not close to any Apollo landing sites.
However, the Chinese do claim to have spotted the Apollo 11 landing site from their orbiter, but the site only resolves to 2 pixels at their resolution capability. At only two pixels for the whole site from the Chinese, the latest LRO imagery remains the best to date.
-
Maybe we could start with the Van Allen belt's ?,only problem there is,in 1969 NASA (or anyone else) had no accurate information about the belt's,and how deadly they !may! be to human's.
Tinman, your statement is just not true.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt
"Kristian Birkeland, Carl Størmer, and Nicholas Christofilos had investigated the possibility of trapped charged particles before the Space Age.[3] Explorer 1 and Explorer 3 confirmed the existence of the belt in early 1958 under James Van Allen at the University of Iowa. The trapped radiation was first mapped out by Explorer 4, Pioneer 3 and Luna 1."
That was all prior to 1960.
From: http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm
Regarding mapping of VAB radiation:
"The description of the radiation environment requires a knowledge of the particle flux as a function of energy, species, location in space, and time. The AE-8 and AP-8 models consist of maps that contain omnidirectional, integral electron (AE maps) and proton (AP maps) fluxes in the energy range 0.04 MeV to 7 MeV for electrons and 0.1 MeV to 400 MeV for protons in the Earth's radiation belt. The fluxes are stored as functions of energy, L-value, and B/B0. The maps are based on data from more than twenty satellites from the early 1960s to the mid-1970s. AE-8 and AP-8 are the latest editions in a series of updates starting with AE-1 and AP-1 in 1966."
Also, from the above Wiki link:
"The Apollo missions marked the first event where humans traveled through the Van Allen belts, which was one of several radiation hazards known by mission planners.[30] The astronauts had low exposure in the Van Allen belts due to the short period of time spent flying through them. Apollo flight trajectories bypassed the inner belts completely to send spacecraft through only the thinner areas of the outer belts. [31][32] The command module's inner structure was an aluminum "sandwich" consisting of a welded aluminium inner skin, a thermally bonded honeycomb core, and a thin aluminium "face sheet". The steel honeycomb core and outer face sheets were thermally bonded to the inner skin.
Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission to mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy), much less than the standard of 5 rem (50 mSv) per year set by the United States Atomic Energy Commission for people who work with radioactivity"
PW
-
Johan ;D [good to see you...]
We had this problem with wooden Nickels over here too....
I would suggest we first try to view these things from here and get good documentation ,perhaps a school project with an observatory ?
-
There are people that say 9/11 never happened and it's all just a projected hologram. There are people that say that ISIS is not really what they say they are, it's just a CIA operation. The heads being cut off, is that real or just a hologram or a series of fake staged videos? There are people that say that Pearl Harbor never happened. The list goes on and on and on. The allegation that the moon shot was all faked is one of these whackadoo stories.
Sometimes the beliefs are so out of whack that it just goes to show the normal distribution when it comes to human behaviours and attitudes. It's all part of Nature's system for ensuring the survival of the species. That doesn't mean that it's true though.
Some guy says he has a magic generator that only needs two liters of water to be added every month and no fuel and people believe him. When the news got mainstream alternative media exposure the guy was flooded with inquiries. Some people take a useless hunk of metal and wires and connect it to an electric motor and say that it's a magic free energy generator and they get hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations for their cause. They put out disinformation that makes North Korea look like their bedfellows and barely anybody says anything. It's completely retarded, they have never presented a single shred of data that it works but they still put out propaganda saying it works.
There are people that hate the oil industry with a passion, blindly object to every proposed pipeline, object to every proposed power line, and yet they are very happy to take a nice hot shower and cook up bacon and eggs for breakfast every morning.
People say we never went to the moon and people say there is a secret permanent military base on the moon that has been there for years. People look at giant rocket that is 35 stories high and say that it was built and launched to supplement the fake footage done on a secret movie studio.
They discovered a face on Mars! Countless books have been written about it. People analyzed the geometry of the surrounding mountains and boulders and found within golden ratios and alien space ports. Whoops, years later a better satellite passed overhead and imaged a normal looking mountain on Mars - but that's actually a conspiracy to hide the fact that there is a face on Mars.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UExTN3_UOIY
-
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/posts/379
-
You are wasting your time Tinman. I do not understand very much about Neuro-Linguistic Programming but unfortunately it appears there is only a small percentage of the population who are not susceptible. Even extremely skeptical people like MH who can spot a scam from a Mile High, are able to believe in something that is completely implausible, without even being prepared to take a logical approach and question the facts. You need to understand that you can not debate the lunar landing with facts and data.
It appears once people have been programmed it is almost impossible to undo this level of conditioning. It is a bit like someone who believes in a religious deity, they will continue to believe in them even after the local priest has molested their children. Any person who had not been subjected to that level of cognitive programing would immediately realize they had been scammed and the entire church was established simply to steal peoples money and allow the leaders easy access to sexually assault their children. Yet they forgive them and the scam continues. Completely unexplainable.
You are so right :-[
-
You are so right :-[
-
So why have we not been back to the moon ?.
Maybe cost is the reason/. Some info on the orion project.
Quote: NASA officials set April 2023 as the timeframe when they expect the Orion spacecraft to be ready to host humans on a flight around the moon.
April 2023 ::)-->why so long. They managed to get man on the moon much quicker back in the 60's.
Quote: NASA says it needs another $6.77 billion to complete development of Orion through 2023, atop $10.5 billion spent on the spacecraft since the project dawned with the Constellation program, an initiative started in 2005 under the Bush administration.That brings the program’s total projected cost to more than $17 billion through the first flight with astronauts.
17 billion dollars before the first maned flight.
The cost of 1 single project is enough to eliminate world hunger >:(
How pathetic ::)
I am not really sure what today's cost to launch a moon mission has to do with evidence of whether man has been to the moon or not, but NASA's budget is pathetically low and I for one wish more of my tax dollars were going there.
However, stamp out world hunger for only $16billion? Not to make light of that issue, but that is way less than $30 per hungry person. That would definitely help for a short time, but I do not think that would "eliminate world hunger".
Apollo was very expensive. From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program#Costs
"The final cost of Apollo was reported to Congress as $25.4 billion in 1973.[82] It took up the majority of NASA's budget while it was being developed. For example, in 1966 it accounted for about 60 percent of NASA's total $5.2 billion budget.[83] A single Saturn V launch in 1969 cost up to $375 million, compared to the National Science Foundation's fiscal year 1970 budget of $440 million.[84]
In 2009, NASA held a symposium on project costs which presented an estimate of the Apollo program costs in 2005 dollars as roughly $170 billion. This included all research and development costs; the procurement of 15 Saturn V rockets, 16 Command/Service Modules, 12 Lunar Modules, plus program support and management costs; construction expenses for facilities and their upgrading, and costs for flight operations. This was based on a Congressional Budget Office report, A Budgetary Analysis of NASA's New Vision for Space, September 2004.[80] The Space Review estimated in 2010 the cost of Apollo from 1959 to 1973 as $20.4 billion, or $109 billion in 2010 dollars.[85]"
$16 billion sounds pretty cheap compared to what Apollo cost. Spaceflight, while still pricey, costs much less now than it used to (using inflation adjusted numbers).
PW
-
Brad:
And it was a debate you lost in the end,along with some very !self acclaimed! smart guy's.
Really? I didn't know it was about winners and losers. I saw it as just another incomplete inconclusive experiment where you are staring at an ordinary vanilla pulse motor and are thinking that something miraculous is taking place because of the presence of some magnets. The problem is your failure to realize that everything was normal and happening just like it was supposed to be happening.
There are active engineer's,and passive engineer's.
I am an active mechanical engineer.
Do you know the difference between the two MH?-->im guessing not.
I have never heard that terminology in my life so please explain. Did you study engineering and graduate from an accredited engineering school or is it like the old cliche, "I am not a doctor but I play one on TV?"
And you know this how?.
You know very little about me,and you have based your judgement only on what you have seen me do-->just like you have based your judgement on the moon landings by what NASA has shown you.
The difference being--one you need to believe in,and the other you need not to believe in. You make me laugh MH-->you have just made two opposite judgement's on two different thing's,based around what you have been shown or seen so far lol.
I only had one summer job in the aerospace industry and have visited a few aerospace companies in my time. So that doesn't amount to much. What I can tell you for sure is that you can't build a lunar rover like you are claiming.
Absolute rubbish.
You think all this is needed just because the temperature may reach 150*C,and that the vehicle will be operating in a vacuum?.
You have been sucked in to the world of bullshit,and that is very obvious now.
You absolutely would need a huge team of engineers to develop a rover in this day and age and Picowatt who is wiser than you and me put together is in agreement with that.
You are deluding yourself about being able to build a rover on the cheap nearly all by yourself just like you are deluding yourself and being pig-headed about your unremarkable pulse motor. It's all part and parcel of the explanation for all of the crazy foolish professional free energy propositions and semi-related pulp fiction hucksterism there is out there. Even in this day and age you can make money selling magnetic bracelets and "structured" water. I suppose that these things are never going to change because the human condition is never going to change.
MileHigh
-
PW:
In a move that promises to shake up the fighter jet market, Canada's new Liberal Party government is widely expected to pull out of the Pentagon's F-35 program.
For Canada's supply base, the stakes are high. Many Canadian companies have spent years building components for the new plane and stand to lose as much as CDN$11 billion (US $8.3 billion) in work over the life of the jet.
I am not posting this to debate about the F35 itself, but rather I want to make another point relating to costs.
From memory, I think the total cost to Canada over 25 or 30 years to have a Canadian fleet of F35s was projected to be about $30 billion Canadian. That was bandied about in the news and used as an argument about the "staggering costs." I can't believe how stupid the media and the gullible public can be sometimes. That averages out to only $3 billion per year, which is peanuts! That's probably the annual budget of a typical large city.
Not to count how much of that money would be recycled back into the local economy which keeps people working, keeps the aerospace sector healthy, preserves brain power, develops new brain power, and pays the bills for housing and sending kids to school - not to mention that it defends our country from the nasties and allows us to project power to keep all of us safe and snug in our beds.
$30 billion over 30 years? Horror of horrors!
MileHigh
-
MH,
My apologies, I must have edited out my reference to the military budget in my prior post as you were posting.
I thought on it a bit and decided to not open that can of worms, hence my deletion of that reference.
PW
-
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/posts/379
The total cost of the mission is reported as US$583 million, of which $504 million pertains to the main LRO probe and $79 million to the LCROSS satellite.
Are we to believe that NASA spent 583 million dollars on a probe to take pictures of the moons surface,and forgot to put a high resolution camera on board that could take clear pictures of the lunar landers on the moon? ::) . Is that the best there is PW ?. Be honest with your self--if you were not told that the picture was of the lunar lander module,would you know what it was. Could i post some blurry pictures like that one of some object,and then have you tell me what it is?.
Here is a satellite picture from digital globe's satellite,from around 400km,-->and through the earths atmosphere.
Brad
-
Together we could build a rover with pulse motors powered by radiant energy :P
-
The total cost of the mission is reported as US$583 million, of which $504 million pertains to the main LRO probe and $79 million to the LCROSS satellite.
Are we to believe that NASA spent 583 million dollars on a probe to take pictures of the moons surface,and forgot to put a high resolution camera on board that could take clear pictures of the lunar landers on the moon? ::) . Is that the best there is PW ?. Be honest with your self--if you were not told that the picture was of the lunar lander module,would you know what it was. Could i post some blurry pictures like that one of some object,and then have you tell me what it is?.
Here is a satellite picture from digital globe's satellite,from around 400km,-->and through the earths atmosphere.
Brad
This is just a classic example of failed logic and failure to think past one step. TK already responded to this elsewhere.
"A satellite in orbit around the moon must have equal imaging resolution to a satellite in orbit around Earth."
Says who?
Duh! Doh!
Who said that was in the "rule book?" You, Brad? You just invented that rule out of thin air because you don't want to think?
There are thousands of satellites in orbit around Earth with all sorts of different optical systems, imagers, design goals, budgets, weight restrictions, amounts of expendable fuel, and so on and so on.
So who the hell are you to "force your expectations of a certain optical and imaging performance" on a satellite in orbit around the moon that you probably know next to nothing about?
It's just beyond ridiculous. It's like you want to force your "vision" of what the satellite *should* be like so that "your declarative statement makes sense." You want that satellite to have a large 5-kilogram very powerful telescopic lens mounted on it and for all you know the optical team was given design constraints of 75 grams total for the mass of the lens and it had to fit into a very small space.
Yes, I pushed this one to show you how absolutely ridiculous your statement was to compare two completely different satellites orbiting around two different heavenly bodies with two different budgets and two different sets of design goals and two different sets of constraints. And like a bull in a China ship you just blast through all of that and make a "declarative statement." And you think that you can design a moon rover on the cheap like it would be a piece of cake when you think like that?
Joe is an Old Salt.
Salt dissolves in water.
Therefore, Joe dissolves in water.
-
This is just a classic example of failed logic and failure to think past one step. TK already responded to this elsewhere.
"
Says who?
Duh! Doh!
Who said that was in the "rule book?" You, Brad? You just invented that rule out of thin air because you don't want to think?
There are thousands of satellites in orbit around Earth with all sorts of different optical systems, imagers, design goals, budgets, weight restrictions, amounts of expendable fuel, and so on and so on.
So the hell are you to "force your expectations of a certain optical and imaging performance" on a satellite in orbit around the moon that you probably know next to nothing about?
It's just beyond ridiculous. It's like you want to force your "vision" of what the satellite *should* be like so that "your declarative statement makes sense." You want that satellite to have a large 5-kilogram very powerful telescopic lens mounted on it and for all you know the optical team was given design constraints of 75 grams total for the mass of the lens and it had to fit into a very small space.
And like a bull in a China ship you just blast through all of that and make a "declarative statement." And you think that you can design a moon rover on the cheap like it would be a piece of cake when you think like that?
Joe is an Old Salt.
Salt dissolves in water.
Therefore, Joe dissolves in water.
A satellite in orbit around the moon must have equal imaging resolution to a satellite in orbit around Earth."
Once again MH,it is you that fails to see the big picture here. Now what brainless bunch of idiot's would send an imagery satellite to the moon that was not capable of taking clear high res picture's?. Some times you just do not think first,as your need to believe in something out weighs your own common sense.
Yes, I pushed this one to show you how absolutely ridiculous your statement was to compare two completely different satellites orbiting around two different heavenly bodies with two different budgets and two different sets of design goals and two different sets of constraints.
Perhaps you had better go read up a little on both satellites,and see which had the larger budget,and what was the goal for both satellites. Then i would like you to post 1 (just 1) nice clear picture of any equipment left behind on the moon by the moon walkers-->lets see you do that.
You are way to bias MH to even be commenting on this thread,as if it was any one else making a huge claim like this,and presented the evidence like NASA have,you would laugh in there face.
Show us some third party proof MH,that man went to the moon-->and not just word's MH,as we all know they mean nothing when it comes to scientific evidence.
Brad
-
The total cost of the mission is reported as US$583 million, of which $504 million pertains to the main LRO probe and $79 million to the LCROSS satellite.
Are we to believe that NASA spent 583 million dollars on a probe to take pictures of the moons surface,and forgot to put a high resolution camera on board that could take clear pictures of the lunar landers on the moon? ::) . Is that the best there is PW ?. Be honest with your self--if you were not told that the picture was of the lunar lander module,would you know what it was. Could i post some blurry pictures like that one of some object,and then have you tell me what it is?.
Here is a satellite picture from digital globe's satellite,from around 400km,-->and through the earths atmosphere.
Brad
Tinman,
The LRO can do 50cm/pixel as opposed to the 30cm/pixel image you post here. Keep in mind that when looking at the LEM in the LROC images, you are looking at an object only slightly larger than the baggage carts seen in the airport photo you posted.
The LRO has been another notable accomplishment, with more data returned than all other planetary missions combined. Having both continued to perform beyond their original mission lifetimes, the LRO and Mars Opportunity Rover have received continued funding thru 2016.
What is the resolution of the images being returned from the Australian lunar orbiter?
PW
-
Check out these additional recent missions by NASA.
Also consider that the scientific data collected by these missions is available to scientists and researchers all over the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THEMIS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Atmosphere_and_Dust_Environment_Explorer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Lunar_Network
Space exploration is expensive and complicated.
Imagine the cascade of design and cost issues that arise just from doubling the visible camera resolution. Doubling the resolution would quadruple the number of pixels. Given the same frame rate, that results in having to increase the data transmission rate by a factor of four. The end result will likely more than quadruple the power requirement for the camera and the transmitter power required for the additional bandwidth. This necessitates an increase of the size of the solar arrays which will add more weight to the orbiter.
In order to not sacrifice image quality and the S/N ratio, were gong to want to maintain the same pixel size as used at the lower resolution which means the sensor will be physically larger. As well, to maintain the same S/N we will need to maintain the same lens speed (ratio of aperture to focal length). Because the field of view requirements are likely dictated by orbital mechanics and the desired per pass coverage, it will also be necessary to maintain the same FOV. In order to maintain the same lens speed and FOV using the larger and higher resolution sensor, the size of the lenses used in the optics will need to be made larger. This will also add additional weight to the orbiter.
Because of the additional weight, orbital insertion and station keeping will require more fuel. This means that unless one is willing to shorten the mission lifetime, extra fuel must be carried which will again add additional weight.
Having to carry the weight of the additional fuel will also require having to burn even more fuel for at least the orbital insertion phase of the mission, so again, even a bit more fuel will have to be carried.
Now we have to increase the size of the fuel tanks, which adds more weight and again requires more fuel.
Eventually we arrive at a compromise and now have a larger and heavier orbiter.
So, now we need to look at the launch platform and see what that additional size and weight is going to cost. From there its about the same, more weight, more fuel, etc.
Also consider that there are additional sensors on the orbiter. Every group related to a given sensor wants theirs to receive a degree of priority, more bandwidth, more power, etc. Imagine a meeting where engineers or department heads are begging for a few additional milliwatts or kilobytes of bandwidth.
Making anything but minor changes requires a complete review of how those modifications will affect everything from the orbiter's weight, power, fuel requirements, launch costs and mission life.
In the end there are often compromises, but NASA does what it can with the budget it has.
PW
-
http://lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov/library/LRO_AAS_Paper_07-057.pdf
Doesn't look all that easy...
-
Brad:
I will tell you up front that I never looked up the capabilities of the imaging systems on either satellite. I was just reacting to what you stated.
I will pose the question to you: Before you made your statement did you look up the capabilities of the imaging systems on the two satellites?
Beyond that, PW like usual made astute comments about the meters per pixel for the two imaging systems. I also read his link about how the LRO dipped quite unusually low before they did the orbital correction and that gave them an opportunity to try to image one of the landing sites with better resolution. I also skimmed through his earlier link with a 10-page scientific explanation and investigation into the Van Allen radiation belts.
PW also correctly pointed out how your image of the airport tarmac with the airplanes was of an outrageously larger object as compared to the LEM on the moon and the image comparison for all practical intents and purposes wasn't even valid. I suppose that didn't occur to you.
My gut feel is telling me you did no research and just made a ridiculous inappropriate comparison to make a point. In your mind you thought that was valid. Let's see if you will answer the question.
My gut feel is also telling me that the imaging system on the LRO is a relatively wide-field camera system for scanning the entire moon's surface and just for fun the team tried to image the Apollo landing site even though the system was not designed to do that.
MileHigh
-
MH,
The LRO has two 50cm/pixel at 50km narrow field cameras and a separate "pushbroom" wide field sensor/camera (as well as several other sensors).
It might be interesting to see what the LRO team is willing to do later on regarding the orbital height as the LRO nears its end of life (fuel exhaustion). Maybe they will try a closer pass of an Apollo site...
If you read the LADEE link in my earlier post, you will see that they intentionally impacted that orbiter onto the far side of the moon at the end of its life so as to prevent any possible damage to historical landing sites such as Apollo, Luna, etc.
The LRO and other missions I linked to openly provide data to researchers around the world.
I never complain about any of my tax dollars going to NASA.
PW
Added: Read the links reposted below when you get the time, they are missions that most people probably never heard of that did a lot of interesting science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THEMIS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Atmosphere_and_Dust_Environment_Explorer
-
Fake, of course. Right, TinMan?
-
Tinsel
can a terrestrial observatory get good images of these things ?
could the Hubble ?
-
Tinman,
Keep in mind that when looking at the LEM in the LROC images, you are looking at an object only slightly larger than the baggage carts seen in the airport photo you posted.
The LRO has been another notable accomplishment, with more data returned than all other planetary missions combined. Having both continued to perform beyond their original mission lifetimes, the LRO and Mars Opportunity Rover have received continued funding thru 2016.
What is the resolution of the images being returned from the Australian lunar orbiter?
PW
The LRO can do 50cm/pixel as opposed to the 30cm/pixel image you post here.
Agreed-no problem there.
But lets not forget the distance difference between the two as well,and also the fact that one was shot through the earth's atmosphere,were as the other will experience no atmospheric disturbance or distortions at all.
LRO distance from moon surface is 25km @ 50cm/pixels-->no atmospheric interference.
World view satellite distance from earth surface + atmospheric interference is 770km @ 30cm/pixels
It is not hard to work out which one should return the better/clearer images.
Brad
-
Fake, of course. Right, TinMan?
As real as the next image TK.
As you can see,i have been to the moon as well :D
After all,there is a picture of it.
-
Brad:
I will tell you up front that I never looked up the capabilities of the imaging systems on either satellite. I was just reacting to what you stated.
Beyond that, PW like usual made astute comments about the meters per pixel for the two imaging systems. I also skimmed through his earlier link with a 10-page scientific explanation and investigation into the Van Allen radiation belts.
PW also correctly pointed out how your image of the airport tarmac with the airplanes was of an outrageously larger object as compared to the LEM on the moon and the image comparison for all practical intents and purposes wasn't even valid. I suppose that didn't occur to you.
My gut feel is telling me you did no research and just made a ridiculous inappropriate comparison to make a point. In your mind you thought that was valid. Let's see if you will answer the question.
My gut feel is also telling me that the imaging system on the LRO is a relatively wide-field camera system for scanning the entire moon's surface and just for fun the team tried to image the Apollo landing site even though the system was not designed to do that.
MileHigh
I will pose the question to you: Before you made your statement did you look up the capabilities of the imaging systems on the two satellites?
Yes i did MH,although i had the orbit distance wrong with the world view satellite,as it turned out to be in a much higher orbit than the 400 odd km i stated.
As i said to PW-->
LRO distance from moon surface is 25km @ 50cm/pixels-->no atmospheric interference.
World view satellite distance from earth surface + atmospheric interference is 770km @ 30cm/pixels
It is not hard to work out which one should return the better/clearer images.
I also read his link about how the LRO dipped quite unusually low before they did the orbital correction and that gave them an opportunity to try to image one of the landing sites with better resolution.
Yes,down to 25km at one stage. But if you look at the image taken from 50km,and then the one that was suppose to be at 25km,they are the same image with the same resolution. ???
So you tell me MH-->which !should! give the better/clearer image.
Brad
-
Check out these additional recent missions by NASA.
Also consider that the scientific data collected by these missions is available to scientists and researchers all over the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THEMIS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Atmosphere_and_Dust_Environment_Explorer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Lunar_Network
Space exploration is expensive and complicated.
Imagine the cascade of design and cost issues that arise just from doubling the visible camera resolution. Doubling the resolution would quadruple the number of pixels. Given the same frame rate, that results in having to increase the data transmission rate by a factor of four. The end result will likely more than quadruple the power requirement for the camera and the transmitter power required for the additional bandwidth. This necessitates an increase of the size of the solar arrays which will add more weight to the orbiter.
In order to not sacrifice image quality and the S/N ratio, were gong to want to maintain the same pixel size as used at the lower resolution which means the sensor will be physically larger. As well, to maintain the same S/N we will need to maintain the same lens speed (ratio of aperture to focal length). Because the field of view requirements are likely dictated by orbital mechanics and the desired per pass coverage, it will also be necessary to maintain the same FOV. In order to maintain the same lens speed and FOV using the larger and higher resolution sensor, the size of the lenses used in the optics will need to be made larger. This will also add additional weight to the orbiter.
Because of the additional weight, orbital insertion and station keeping will require more fuel. This means that unless one is willing to shorten the mission lifetime, extra fuel must be carried which will again add additional weight.
Having to carry the weight of the additional fuel will also require having to burn even more fuel for at least the orbital insertion phase of the mission, so again, even a bit more fuel will have to be carried.
Now we have to increase the size of the fuel tanks, which adds more weight and again requires more fuel.
Eventually we arrive at a compromise and now have a larger and heavier orbiter.
So, now we need to look at the launch platform and see what that additional size and weight is going to cost. From there its about the same, more weight, more fuel, etc.
Also consider that there are additional sensors on the orbiter. Every group related to a given sensor wants theirs to receive a degree of priority, more bandwidth, more power, etc. Imagine a meeting where engineers or department heads are begging for a few additional milliwatts or kilobytes of bandwidth.
Making anything but minor changes requires a complete review of how those modifications will affect everything from the orbiter's weight, power, fuel requirements, launch costs and mission life.
In the end there are often compromises, but NASA does what it can with the budget it has.
PW
Well apparently there is no problem with the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter launched on August 12, 2005, . The picture is of a track left after a boulder rolled down a hill !apparently!. The boulder is said to be about only 3.5 meters wide.
Out of every satellite and telescope ever launched,not one has the capability to take a clear shot of any of the equipment left behind on the moon by the moon walkers--not one. Even other countries that have sent satellites and rovers to the moon have never taken one clear picture of any of the equipment left behind by the U.S.
-
Quote from PW
Don't bother, the questions were rhetorical. It seems rather apparent that you have never done any design work for life critical systems or flight/spaceflight rated systems. If you believe human spaceflight is such a piece of cake, perhaps you should consider consulting for, or at least setting straight, the likes of Elon Musk or Sir Richard. That you think it is so easy and a bunch of "rubbish" borders on delusions of grandeur.
I am not delusional ,thank you very much.
I have never said that i could,or have the ability to design or build spaceflight rated systems,but at the age of 27,my self and a friend designed and built an ultralight aircraft,and that flew quite fine.
What i did claim(and still do),is that i could build a lunar rover for half the cost that NASA paid for each of theirs. There is nothing special about the lunar rover's. The assumption that they must have been some great feat of engineering because they must work in the partial vacuum of space is just wrong.
Before we get started on this part of the subject,lets come to some sort of agreement of the temperatures on both the moon surface,in the shade/shadow's,and in direct sun light. We should also both come to the agreement that there is no convection of heat on the moon,due to no atmosphere/due to the vacuum of space on the moon. But we would also agree that heat can be transferred by means of conduction.
As far as i can find,---Temperatures on the moon swing from 120 degrees Celsius (248 degrees Fahrenheit) by day to minus 150 degrees Celsius (minus 238 degrees Fahrenheit) by night.
That information in it self raises some interesting question's--like how did the astronauts stay warm at night?. But we'll leave that for later. For now,lets get as accurate as we can on temperatures in direct sun light on the moon.-->surface temperature-what temperature would metal objects reach in direct sun light-what temperatures would be seen on metal objects/components when shaded by other objects. Once we have these number's,then maybe you will see!!not only!! how easy it is to design the vehicle,but also some other things that just dont add up !once again!
I am going to go as far as building a decent size vacuum chamber(as large as funds permit). With this,we can carry out many test to confirm what dose and dose not happen in a vacuum. One of the test i cant wait to carry out,is to see if any blast crater is created when a rocket engine gets close to a dusty dry surface in a vacuum. But that will be some ways down the track. I already have the vacuum pump,so need to gather the vessel,gauges,and super thick plexiglass face plate.
Anyway-what temperatures do you believe are the values to that i posted above ?.
Brad
-
Well apparently there is no problem with the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter launched on August 12, 2005, . The picture is of a track left after a boulder rolled down a hill !apparently!. The boulder is said to be about only 3.5 meters wide.
Out of every satellite and telescope ever launched,not one has the capability to take a clear shot of any of the equipment left behind on the moon by the moon walkers--not one. Even other countries that have sent satellites and rovers to the moon have never taken one clear picture of any of the equipment left behind by the U.S.
Tinman,
Although I have not looked at the MRO specs, the MRO image you posted looks to have a resolution similar to or a bit less than that of the Apollo 11 image TK posted. 3.5 meters is very close to the LEM dimensions. I do know that the same Kodak image sensor used on the LROC is also used on the Mars rover.
In the MRO image you posted, where is the boulder? Would you be able to tell there even is, or was, a boulder without an imaging expert telling you that is what it is?
Take a look at your airport photo. Zoom in on the tug in front of the most centrally located aircraft. Would you be able to tell that is a tug without already knowing what it is?
Very few countries have placed anything into lunar orbit and captured images, let alone at the resolution of LROC. Like building a lunar rover, you underestimate the difficulty of the task and under appreciate the results achieved.
Even if we had higher resolution imagery of the Apollo sites, people like you would likely just claim those images to be fake. In the future, when another country or private venture is able to capture better images, you would likely claim those entities are also in on "the great conspiracy". And if you were able to fly to the moon and see the landing sites for yourself, you would likely claim they have just been staged and placed there.
Even though you have provided no credible evidence to support your assertions that the Apollo missions did not happen, what, exactly, would you accept as proof that the Apollo missions did happen? What evidence would be sufficient to change what has become your "beliefs"?
PW
-
There is nothing special about the lunar rover's. The assumption that they must have been some great feat of engineering because they must work in the partial vacuum of space is just wrong.
Like I said, the cost of the hardware to actually build the rovers was insignificant compared to the cost to design, test, and certify the operation of the rovers. Please don't feel the need to start spouting what you believe to be a rover design suitable for launch to and operation on the moon. Do you seriously think yourself qualified to perform even the thermodynamic analysis necessary to design your thermal management system? Do you know how innovative and yet elegantly simple the rover's thermal management system was?
The fact that you cannot see the engineering marvels used in the deigns of the very simple lunar rover used during Apollo only indicates that you do not understand the difficulty of the task. Look how long China's recent robotic lunar rover was able to move about before it failed.
That you "think" you could do better or cheaper has no bearing on whether Apollo did or did not happen and only erodes your credibility.
Before we get started on this part of the subject,lets come to some sort of agreement of the temperatures on both the moon surface,in the shade/shadow's,and in direct sun light.
I need to get some work done, so I likely won't be wasting much more time on this subject.
But, how about before YOU go any further you address the refutation of your claims regarding the Van Allen belts?
What you stated was simply not true and yet you just continue on as if it were.
-
Before we get started on this part of the subject,lets come to some sort of agreement of the temperatures on both the moon surface,in the shade/shadow's,and in direct sun light. We should also both come to the agreement that there is no convection of heat on the moon,due to no atmosphere/due to the vacuum of space on the moon. But we would also agree that heat can be transferred by means of conduction.
Conduction to what? You could conduct some heat away to the lunar surface, but the lunar soil/dust is said to not be a very good conductor of heat.
As far as i can find,---Temperatures on the moon swing from 120 degrees Celsius (248 degrees Fahrenheit) by day to minus 150 degrees Celsius (minus 238 degrees Fahrenheit) by night.
I've seen figures stated as extreme as +/- 200C (+392 to -328F)
That information in it self raises some interesting question's--like how did the astronauts stay warm at night?.
This question can only be asked from a position of extreme ignorance of the subject matter.
Perhaps you should take the time to learn a bit more about the Apollo missions before trying to prove they did not happen...
PW
-
Johan 1955 says
quote
The Netherlands are best friends with US!
So we did get a very special gift in the sixties from our liberating friends, only Russia did do the job:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8226075.stm
--------------
things like the above don't help the cause
I have been unable to get any good pics from earth bound mountain top observatories.
plenty of Guys on you tube seem to get nice clear images with small private scopes, although I have seen
very close Horizon images [albeit blurry] from Private astronomers .
it would seem radio imaging from an earth observatory could get very good feedback from the metal artifacts left on the lunar surface ?
where's all the good Moon pics ?
do you have any idea how much interest NASA [or whomever] could generate if we pointed the Hubble scope at the Moon for some close ups so the kids could see the old sites ?
some 8x10 glossy's of the old Landers and buggy's
talk about getting the wallet out for space exploration ??
seems the moon is too Boring ?
I have been unable to find any pics from an observatory on earth which are any better that a good hobby scope [albeit an expensive scope]
something is screwy and its causing the younger generations that were not around during this time to suspect this was fake
or something else.
you must admit 40 -50 years ?? dropped like a hot potatoe....
that's the real problem here IMHO.
-
Johan 1955 says
quote
The Netherlands are best friends with US!
So we did get a very special gift in the sixties from our liberating friends, only Russia did do the job:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8226075.stm
---
things like the above don't help the cause
No, they don't.
But consider this. You've had a piece of moon rock proudly displayed sitting on a shelf in a cabinet at home for many years. You grew old and died. The administrators of your estate estate finds out the item on the shelf is actually fake.
Now, in your mind, is it not likely that as you grew old, a caregiver, lawyer, nephew etc, realized the amount of money some private collector would be willing to pay for that item and might have taken the rock and replaced it with something that looked fairly similar? After all, you as an old man probably did not look at it very much any more, and if you did, well, your eyes had become a bit older too.
Many moon rocks have been stolen or just come up missing over the years. Even NASA employees have been arrested for stealing moon rocks. It is almost always because of what someone is willing to pay for them.
where's all the good Moon pics ?
There are plenty of moon "pics". Have you looked for them? Check out NASA...
do you have any idea how much interest NASA [or whomever] could generate if we pointed the Hubble scope at the Moon for some close ups so the kids could see the old sites ?
The Hubble is not suited for looking at the moon with greater resolution than LROC.
The best images to date of the Apollo landing sites are from LROC and what you have seen is as good as it gets (the image TK recently posted for example).
PW
-
Soo the Old moon rock switcheroo conspiracy theory 8) perfectly plausible
I suppose the "Good as it gets" Moon pics from NASA are a bit odd to the general population with_ images_
of Nebulas and such at unimaginable distances ?
And generating images from radio or other methods doesn't seem to be available for the moon lander locations ..
-
Soo the Old moon rock switcheroo conspiracy theory 8) perfectly plausible
I suppose the "Good as it gets" Moon pics from NASA are a bit odd to the general population with_ images_
of Nebulas and such at unimaginable distances ?
With that "general population" apparently not understanding why, or even realizing, that the resolution of the lunar images made by LROC is much, much better than the resolution of those Nebulae images...
-
Here a more elaborate newspaper article about the Dutch fake moon rock:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2009-09-14-moon-rock_N.htm
"The real Dutch moon rocks are in a natural history museum."
So, is this the true story of the Dutch Moon rocks? I do not know, but it shows that one should not make conspiracy theories from newspaper articles. Many articles are just hearsay or misinterpretations or misrepresentations of the truth.
About good pictures from the stuff left on the moon:
Whatever NASA provides, the conspiracy believers will not be satisfied. Everything can in theory be faked and there will always be people who claim that it is a fake, however good the proof is. And why should NASA provide proof, just because a few crazies demand it?
Why nobody has gone back to the moon:
The moon race was important politics at that time. The US wanted to prove that they can do better than the Russians. This goal has vanished, because the space race was won too easily by the US. There was and still is no more need to prove anything. The Russians have been defeated by themselves and the US is doing everything possible at the moment to copy that (just look at the presidential candidates and how the middle class has ben wiped out in the last decades).
It makes little sense to do the moon landings again unless one can build permanent buildings on the moon and have people there for months and years. And this is still not feasible.
All commercial interest in space is directed towards earth orbits (communication satellites, navigation satellites). Even most scientific interests are in earth orbit (measuring and photographing many things globally on the earth). Military interests are in earth orbits; the enemy is on earth not out in space.
Sending men beyond earth orbit is still not feasible in a useful way, and therefore it is not happening.
Too many problems have materialized on earth: financial crisis, economic crisis, political crisis because the "free market economy" is not providing what was promised for many decades, a global disillusionment concerning manned space travel has happened.
It turned out that sending men far into space is much more costly and technologically difficult than one thought back in 1960 to 1975. Much more progress is still necessary than one thought. May be autonomous robotic devices can do better space travel than people?
These are much more valid reasons than a conspiracy!
But conspiracy theories are cheap to come up with and can be sold easily. One can never beat conspiracy developers and conspiracy believers, they will be with us forever.
Conspiracy developers and believers are like OU developers and believers: they demand that one proves them wrong. This is a reversal of duty. They have to provide very good proof that they are right.
Greetings, Conrad
-
Like I said, the cost of the hardware to actually build the rovers was insignificant compared to the cost to design, test, and certify the operation of the rovers. Please don't start spouting what you believe to be a rover design suitable for launch to and operation on the moon.
The fact that you cannot see the engineering marvels used in the deigns of the very simple lunar rover used during Apollo only indicates that you do not understand the difficulty of the task. Look how long China's recent robotic lunar rover was able to move about before it failed.
That you "think" you could do better or cheaper has no bearing on whether Apollo did or did not happen and only erodes your credibility.
I need to get some work done, so I likely won't be wasting much more time on this subject.
But, how about before YOU go any further you address the refutation of your claims regarding the Van Allen belts?
What you stated was simply not true and yet you just continue on as if it were.
I have posted video's of both the ISS commander ,and a NASA engineer that have both said that we cannot yet traverse the van allen belt's. Perhaps you go argue with them?.
I have also posted video's of the apollo astronaut's that had no clue as to weather they went through the van allen belt's or not--are you going to argue these two point's ?.
Do you seriously think yourself qualified to perform even the thermodynamic analysis necessary to design your thermal management system? Do you know how innovative and yet elegantly simple the rover's thermal management system was?
As you guys often say-->you can see the forest for the tree's.
Do you know how innovative and yet elegantly simple the rover's thermal management system was
Yes i do. It was about as innovative as the photographic paper the picture below was printed on,and the plastic bag it was wrapped in.
Quote: I've seen figures stated as extreme as +/- 200C (+392 to -328F)
Well if a picture and plastic bag can survive those temperatures,then how can you say that thermal control is an issue.
Time and time again,NASA shoots them self in the foot,and shows us evidence time and time again that the moon landings were a hoax. But no matter what evidence any one provides that clearly shows the whole thing was a hoax,you (and others) turn a blind eye to it all--as you must believe it was real,regardless of any evidence to the contrary.
So how is it that the picture that Charles Duke placed on the moon dose not shrivel up PW,if temperatures are as high as you have posted.?
Brad
-
So i have found a site that has all of NASA's high res pictures--with large zoom capabilities.
This is a treasure trove to the researchers out there.
Below is a couple of high res close up's of the lunar landers of Apollo 16 and 17.
I mean ,just have a look at these wrecks :o ::). Are you truly trying to tell us that these wrecks carried man to and from the moon?-->i mean REALLY lol. This has to be some sort of joke :P
Square cut unfinished corners of sheet metal--the flooring base looks like corrugated zincalume sheeting from some farmers hay shed--all the seems are coming apart-->i mean,just look at the wrecks.
And you have the balls to say that i couldnt design and build a vehicle that could opperate in the vacuum of space.
All NASA's millions to build the best of the best :o-yea right--looks like it. ::) ::)
-
Now for the stolen lunar lander.
Below-the first pic is of the lunar lander in it's landing position.
The second pic is taken from a further distance--notice any thing missing in the second picture.
I have attached the mission and image number,so as you can go check your self. There is also 3 other high resolution pictures from different angles that also show no sign of the lunar lander.
So if some one thumped the lunar escape module,how did the astronauts get off the moon.
Yea ,i know it sounds just stupid,but the facts are in the pictures provided by NASA them self.
-
Tinman,
Based on the two photos being from different EVA's and film magazines,
and with different sun elevation angles, I would say the issue is merely one of perspective
and viewing direction. You may believe that the mountains in the background are the same
ones, but looking at them closely, I am not so sure. Also notice the difference in the slope
of the ground. I am not sure what you believe these images prove.
Here is the data I was able to find regarding the images. With regard to the "Description" line,
I would have to do more research to decipher what is provided, perhaps you have the time to do so.
Data for AS17-146-22388
Image Collection: 70mm Hasselblad
Mission: 17
Magazine: 146
Magazine Letter: F
Lens Focal Length: 60 mm
Sun Elevation: 37°
Mission Activity: EVA 3
Description: STA 8; LUNAR ROVING VEHICLE; LUNAR MODULE PILOT
Film Type: SO-368
Film Width: 70 mm
Film Color: color
Data for AS17-134-20435
Image Collection: 70mm Hasselblad
Mission: 17
Magazine: 134
Magazine Letter: B
Lens Focal Length: 60 mm
Sun Elevation: 17°
Mission Activity: EVA 1
Description: STA SEP; SURFACE ELECTRICAL PROPERTIES EXPERIMENT; PARTIAL PAN; LUNAR ROVING VEHICLE
Film Type: SO-368
Film Width: 70 mm
Film Color: color
-
I have posted video's of both the ISS commander ,and a NASA engineer that have both said that we cannot yet traverse the van allen belt's. Perhaps you go argue with them?.
I have also posted video's of the apollo astronaut's that had no clue as to weather they went through the van allen belt's or not--are you going to argue these two point's ?.
As you guys often say-->you can see the forest for the tree's.
Yes, very nice "quote mining". If you really wanted to do your case justice, you would find a transcript or video of the entire interviews, etc, and not provide snippets taken out of context and posted in a video by someone who apparently doesn't even believe the ISS is real.
Do you know how innovative and yet elegantly simple the rover's thermal management system was
Yes i do. It was about as innovative as the photographic paper the picture below was printed on,and the plastic bag it was wrapped in.
Your lack of appreciation for the rover's engineering astounds me. Go for it, show us your thermal management calculations and engineering solutions. I know I would not be able to pull that off without seeking out the consultation of appropriate engineers and scientists capable af answering a lot of design related questions regarding conditions on the lunar surface and those experienced during launch.
I would think that an "active" or "passive" mechanical engineer such as yourself (whatever that actually means) should be able to appreciate what goes into a design like the rover. Even an appreciation for the complexity involved in just designing an appropriate "shake and bake" test seems to escape you.
Quote: I've seen figures stated as extreme as +/- 200C (+392 to -328F)
Well if a picture and plastic bag can survive those temperatures,then how can you say that thermal control is an issue.
Time and time again,NASA shoots them self in the foot,and shows us evidence time and time again that the moon landings were a hoax. But no matter what evidence any one provides that clearly shows the whole thing was a hoax,you (and others) turn a blind eye to it all--as you must believe it was real,regardless of any evidence to the contrary.
So how is it that the picture that Charles Duke placed on the moon dose not shrivel up PW,if temperatures are as high as you have posted.?
I stated what the temperature "extremes" of the Moon in general are. Based on the numbers you gave, that is what I thought you were asking about. I would have to consult with an appropriate thermodynamic engineer if you wanted to know the temperature of a specific object of given surface characteristics and at a given sun angle in the lunar environment.
As far as the surface temperature where the photo is placed, I do not know what it was at that specific time, do you? However, like asking about how the astronauts survived at "night", if you did a bit of research, some of this would be way more obvious to you.
However, regarding that image of a photo on the surface of the moon, I am sure it looks a bit different now if it is still there. But at the time it was taken, how long had it been on the surface and what did you think should have happened in that time period? Are you just guessing about those answers or do you have some kind of evidence that a photo wrapped in plastic with a given reflectance and in a particular solar flux in the lunar vacuum placed on the lunar surface for "X" amount of time prior to being photographed should have done what?
You are reaching for straws.
-
Brad/tinman
The two picture of the rover are from two different direction and. Note the second photo that doesn't sown the lander show a foothill on the second mountain. No smoking gun there. Also for the flimsy lander that they are famous for due to weight constraints. Don't overlook shielding of some sort.
Alan
-
So i have found a site that has all of NASA's high res pictures--with large zoom capabilities.
This is a treasure trove to the researchers out there.
Below is a couple of high res close up's of the lunar landers of Apollo 16 and 17.
I mean ,just have a look at these wrecks :o ::). Are you truly trying to tell us that these wrecks carried man to and from the moon?-->i mean REALLY lol. This has to be some sort of joke :P
Square cut unfinished corners of sheet metal--the flooring base looks like corrugated zincalume sheeting from some farmers hay shed--all the seems are coming apart-->i mean,just look at the wrecks.
And you have the balls to say that i couldnt design and build a vehicle that could opperate in the vacuum of space.
All NASA's millions to build the best of the best :o-yea right--looks like it. ::) ::)
The inner and outer walls of the LEM were very thin. Between the inner wall and the outer wall, which is actually the micrometeorite shield panels seen on the outside of the LEM in the images posted, was a thermal blanket. The outer micrometeroite shield and thermal blanket were supported away from the inner skin by standoffs. On the way to the moon, the outer micrometerorite shield of the LEM saw large temperature variations which caused thermal expansion and contraction of those outer panels. They were intentionally mounted to allow for this (and reduce thermal conduction to the inner skin). Even so, being attached at the standoffs produced some degree of inconsequential buckling. Keep in mind the LEM never saw aerodynamic loads, needed to be as light as possible, and in the end was disposable.
Astronauts have remarked, somewhat tongue in cheek, about how thin even the inner walls of the LEM were and that they were a bit concerned over how easily they might be punctured. Nothing was made any heavier than it absolutely had to be. Anywhere weight could be saved it was. Space is not easy.
Here is some cool design info, wall construction is around page 7 and 8 or so:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LM04_Lunar_Module_ppLV1-17.pdf
Just for grins, check out the explosive devices discussed toward the end of the document.
PW
Added: From the linked document, those outer micrometeorite panels, minus additional thermal coatings (i.e., paint) were made from aluminum that varied between .004" and .008" thick, which is similar to the thickness of a beer can. I believe I read somewhere that the inner skin was only on the high side of those thickness numbers or just a tad bit more.
-
So i have found a site that has all of NASA's high res pictures--with large zoom capabilities.
This is a treasure trove to the researchers out there.
Below is a couple of high res close up's of the lunar landers of Apollo 16 and 17.
I mean ,just have a look at these wrecks :o ::). Are you truly trying to tell us that these wrecks carried man to and from the moon?-->i mean REALLY lol. This has to be some sort of joke :P
Square cut unfinished corners of sheet metal--the flooring base looks like corrugated zincalume sheeting from some farmers hay shed--all the seems are coming apart-->i mean,just look at the wrecks.
And you have the balls to say that i couldnt design and build a vehicle that could opperate in the vacuum of space.
All NASA's millions to build the best of the best :o-yea right--looks like it. ::) ::)
No offense Tinman but I can't believe NASA built that. This looks like something you through together with some mates in the back paddock after a couple beers. That is really a rough job and you need to learn how to use a rivet gun cause you buckled the crap out of sheet metal. If I was your high school metal work teacher I would have given you an F for that piece of garbage.
Is that duct tape ?
-
I have seen some disturbing videos disclosed anonymous on the wed that have already been deleted showing landing on the moon and hidden "man made" caves on the moon.
In my beliefs, I do believe they went there. BUT they only managed it to do it with “stolen” technology. This goes back to Einstein, Nikola, Hiddler (I miss spelled it on purpose), and others that are not US born. Just look at the history of the rocket...I forgot his name but he is not a US born (like many) that made it possible for the rocket to break from the earth's “gravity”...Einstein was not US born but he was a great thinker and founder of great thoughts.
At any rate, I do believe they managed to go to the moon by spending lots of money building non-US citizens stolen ideas. The great minds always come from poverty! Or the occasional genetically born person with a different brain than the average...but most come from the poor and not the rich.
Eisntein = foreigner.
Nikola = foreigner.
Hiddler = foreigner.
Wright brothers = German, Dutch, English, Swiss
That dude that made the rocket posible to go outside the earth's atmosphere = foreigner.
The US is guilty of stealing ideas and not crediting where they come from?
At any rate, I do believe they managed to get to the moon. The is no purpose on going back there again?
The conspiracy? The Chinese will surpass the US eventually! They are even taking over tools. I am a big tools fan. Like from the store sears. They use to be USA made and proud tools. Now they are made in china. Many sears have closed. Radioshack has closed many US stores too. One of the major tool brands right now is Milwaukee which is own by china. That company has surpassed sears and has bought other US tool companies too. Makita (Japanese) is another major brand tool company and is not even US either.
Shyt, now that I think about it, not a lot of innovative things come from the US...they just “steal” innovations from others. O.0 There is this INCOMPREHENSIBLE ideology where the thinkers give the ideas to the US and the US use those ideas and think their citizens came up with those ideas..which history shows that is 100% false. IMO.
Now I need to go take my medication lol
-
Think about this... If the moon landings were faked then presumably the entire LRO design team and operations team would have to be in on the conspiracy. We can guess that half to two-thirds of the personnel on both teams weren't even born when the first moon landing was made. So that means you had to sign fresh engineering students out of college into secrecy into a nefarious criminal government plot. Once you just tell them that they have to sign they are bound to not tell anyone that you asked them to sign even if they aren't hired.
The criminal conspiracy is unworkable and doesn't make any sense. Whenever a new space probe is developed that images the moon you have to sign the new team into a criminal conspiracy.
It makes about as much sense as stating that the WTC towers were wired with explosives ahead of time.
-
Balcony is always crying for a: Third-party validation.
The stones are Third-party , oops a half ton!?!?!, but so that we can check and proven phoney!
All the rest is not Third-Party and so Disney, why is Dansing not reacting?
-
No offense Tinman but I can't believe NASA built that. This looks like something you through together with some mates in the back paddock after a couple beers. That is really a rough job and you need to learn how to use a rivet gun cause you buckled the crap out of sheet metal. If I was your high school metal work teacher I would have given you an F for that piece of garbage.
Is that duct tape ?
Lol--no,they are the real deal from NASA--believe it or not. These are the multi million dollar machines that landed man safely on the moon,and then lifted them back into space lol.
This site has every picture ever taken by NASA's apollo missions. I have spent a lot of time going through them,and i can tell you now-the moon walkers were a hoax. In this archive of pictures,wou will see magic happen,from self levitating lunar rover's,to lunar modules that change positions all by them self. The images that are shown on this video of the apollo 17 mission,are on there as well-as clear as day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-djnyOm1Jdw
Here is the link to the apollo 17 mission photographs. Click on each image,and it will expand the image. You can see so much detail in these images-even at exploded views.
The site has all the apollo missions on it,so take a day,and enjoy the hoax unravel.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157658976934006/page1
Oh,and check out the plastic/nylon flag's in HD. Some say they were an aluminum foil,but as you can see--good old nylon/plastic material,with standard stitching. They seem to hold up well to the extreme temperature's-->just like that photograph in the plastic bag did.
Brad
-
The inner and outer walls of the LEM were very thin. Between the inner wall and the outer wall, which is actually the micrometeorite shield panels seen on the outside of the LEM in the images posted, was a thermal blanket. The outer micrometeroite shield and thermal blanket were supported away from the inner skin by standoffs. On the way to the moon, the outer micrometerorite shield of the LEM saw large temperature variations which caused thermal expansion and contraction of those outer panels. They were intentionally mounted to allow for this (and reduce thermal conduction to the inner skin). Even so, being attached at the standoffs produced some degree of inconsequential buckling. Keep in mind the LEM never saw aerodynamic loads, needed to be as light as possible, and in the end was disposable.
Astronauts have remarked, somewhat tongue in cheek, about how thin even the inner walls of the LEM were and that they were a bit concerned over how easily they might be punctured. Nothing was made any heavier than it absolutely had to be. Anywhere weight could be saved it was. Space is not easy.
Here is some cool design info, wall construction is around page 7 and 8 or so:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LM04_Lunar_Module_ppLV1-17.pdf
Just for grins, check out the explosive devices discussed toward the end of the document.
PW
Added: From the linked document, those outer micrometeorite panels, minus additional thermal coatings (i.e., paint) were made from aluminum that varied between .004" and .008" thick, which is similar to the thickness of a beer can. I believe I read somewhere that the inner skin was only on the high side of those thickness numbers or just a tad bit more.
I want some of that thermal blanket. In my house, when the outside temp. gets over 390 F., my cooling bill gets too high. I can imagine how, with only a wall thickness of apparently 4 inches or so just like my house is now, I can have a comfortable life without AC like in the lander.
Thanks for the reference to beer can thickness. Now I have something I can relate to.
Did we ever figure out how they survived the terrible cold of night on the Moon? Maybe on the Moon they have shorter nights?
CANGAS 202
-
I want some of that thermal blanket. In my house, when the outside temp. gets over 390 F., my cooling bill gets too high. I can imagine how, with only a wall thickness of apparently 4 inches or so just like my house is now, I can have a comfortable life without AC like in the lander.
Thanks for the reference to beer can thickness. Now I have something I can relate to.
CANGAS 202
Did we ever figure out how they survived the terrible cold of night on the Moon? Maybe on the Moon they have shorter nights?
Insulation dear Watson lol.
Im more interested in what the differential pressure was between the inside and outside of the space suits. Looking at the first image,it would appear as though there was none--note all the wrinkles in the suit. The second image is what i would expect to see lol.
-
Nobody seems to have thought about what Russia were doing,
I'll bet they had their beady eyes on every move.
-
Lol--no,they are the real deal from NASA--believe it or not. These are the multi million dollar machines that landed man safely on the moon,and then lifted them back into space lol.
A mechanical engineer of any kind, which apparently you are not, would be able to look at the design of the LEM, including those outer panels you scoff at, and appreciate the high degree of research, design, and engineering that went into the design solution arrived at. The outer panels are like a lightweight tent suspended away from the inner structures. They are connected to the inner structure by standoffs using as few of them as possible to reduce thermal conduction between the outer and inner walls. The outer panels were overlapped, somewhat like shingles, and where they overlapped, the panels were chemically milled to reduce their thickness to reduce unnecessary weight.
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.
This site has every picture ever taken by NASA's apollo missions. I have spent a lot of time going through them,and i can tell you now-the moon walkers were a hoax. In this archive of pictures,wou will see magic happen,from self levitating lunar rover's,to lunar modules that change positions all by them self. The images that are shown on this video of the apollo 17 mission,are on there as well-as clear as day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-djnyOm1Jdw
I actually wasted a few moments of my life and watched the "analysis" of the first two images discussed in this video. They are very keen on being focused on and discussing, the background, but it is the foreground that one should instead pay attention to.
Oh,and check out the plastic/nylon flag's in HD. Some say they were an aluminum foil,but as you can see--good old nylon/plastic material,with standard stitching. They seem to hold up well to the extreme temperature's-->just like that photograph in the plastic bag did.
And just exactly how can you determine what the flag is made from by just looking at it?
For work that I do here I have an entire library of woven metal mesh. I have stainless steel, bronze, brass, copper, aluminum, Monel, Nickel and a few more exotic materials with weaves up 1200 wires per inch. Some of these mesh are more flexible than and feel softer than a lot of synthetic cloth weaves.
NASA used a lot of woven mesh in various applications. Some of the most expensive, and at the time, leading edge technology, were used in the glove of the space suit. On the LEM, for example, the darker material of thermal insulation seen on the outside in the areas of the nozzle exhaust incorporated a nickle mesh.
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.
PW
-
Think about this... If the moon landings were faked then presumably the entire LRO design team and operations team would have to be in on the conspiracy. We can guess that half to two-thirds of the personnel on both teams weren't even born when the first moon landing was made. So that means you had to sign fresh engineering students out of college into secrecy into a nefarious criminal government plot. Once you just tell them that they have to sign they are bound to not tell anyone that you asked them to sign even if they aren't hired.
The criminal conspiracy is unworkable and doesn't make any sense. Whenever a new space probe is developed that images the moon you have to sign the new team into a criminal conspiracy.
It makes about as much sense as stating that the WTC towers were wired with explosives ahead of time.
The way NASA works is to keep every group completely departmentalized. Your team is to build a Rover. My team built the thrusters etc. Now everything is assembled. Once the Rocket is launched everyone works completely from data received to understand the status of the mission. The data can either be real or simulated.
So all they had to do was build a rocket, fly up to space, orbit around a few times and come back home. In the mean time transmit a bunch of fake data back and play some pre-recorded video that was projected at a low lumen 640 * 480 onto a screen in Black and White and then filmed off that screen by the various TV networks. The only people who needed to know were the Astronauts, the president and a handful of people including the guy who streamed the fake video from the Parkes radio telescope in Australia that was actually damaged by a storm that morning. The reason they needed to use such a huge dish and no one else could receive the signal was because apparently the astronauts did not even have an antenna large enough to transmit a signal to earth.
Did I mention that I built a 50K Watt water powered generator, Here is a video and the data to prove it WWW.GDSTECHNOLOGIES.COM
-
You only need about 3 PSI of mostly oxygen to survive in space.
There are also many photos of Earth bound equipment tests that seem to get confused in the mix.
-
Insulation dear Watson lol.
Im more interested in what the differential pressure was between the inside and outside of the space suits. Looking at the first image,it would appear as though there was none--note all the wrinkles in the suit. The second image is what i would expect to see lol.
Once again you demonstrate an extreme ignorance of the subject matter.
In the vacuum of space or on the surface of the moon, there is no "air" to support conduction or generate convection. All heat flow is by way of radiation and absorption. In recent posts you asked what the temperature on the moon was and I provided you with the extremes that I have seen published (+/-200C). Those temperature extremes are of the lunar surface temperature. There is no "air" so there is no other temperature to discuss. The temperature of any object on the moon will depend on its reflection and absorption properties with regard to the solar flux to which it is exposed.
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. They are typically made from two walls of glass separated by a vacuum. No heat can flow thru the vacuum by conduction. But, thermal (infrared) radiation can flow thru the vacuum so the walls are typically metalized so as to reflect and prevent the flow of radiated heat.
So, now you are standing on the moon, in a vacuum thermos, so to speak. Your temperature will depend for the most part on what you are wearing and whether you are in the direct sun or in a shadow. If you are wearing a layered spacesuit that has reflective layers designed to efficiently reflect visible, IR, and UV wavelengths, even while standing in the direct sun, you will experience only a moderate rise in temperature. In fact, if an astronaut has his back to the sun, his hands would be in his own shadow and would become cold very quickly.
Similarly, the LEM only needs to reflect away as much solar flux as possible using its outer layer of panels. They are not perfect reflectors so their temperature will slowly climb. As their temperature increases, they will tend to radiate away heat from their inner surface. To reduce the flow of radiated heat, a layered thermal barrier (IR barrier) of insulation is suspended between (not touching) the inner and outer wall panels. Because of the vacuum, the only other heat flow path between the inner and outer walls of the LEM is by way of conduction thru the standoffs that support the outer wall panels away from the inner wall. A minimum number of standoffs were used to reduce this conductive heat path, and is why the outer panels have very few attachment points and are effectively draped over the inner structure in a tent like fashion. The gold metalized mylar films used to wrap the struts and lower sections of the lander are also used to reflect infrared wavelengths and prevent those areas of the lander from becoming excessively hot.
You have asked how the astronauts handled the extreme cold of the lunar night. A lunar day and lunar night are each 2 weeks long. The astronauts were never on the moon during a lunar night. In fact, NASA timed the lunar landings to occur during the lunar dawn (morning). The surface temperature at that time was still relatively cool.
(Surely the phases of the moon were explained to you in grade school science class. Were you paying attention? Does "28 days" ring a bell?)
PW
-
Insulation dear Watson lol.
Im more interested in what the differential pressure was between the inside and outside of the space suits. Looking at the first image,it would appear as though there was none--note all the wrinkles in the suit. The second image is what i would expect to see lol.
I am sorry Tinman, but my respect for any intellectual prowess I may have credited you with in the past is dwindling rather quickly. In fact, I am finding it hard to believe you were ever 27 years old.
With only the slightest amount of research into the design of the Apollo space suits, you would not be asking this silly question or poking fun using the Michelin man.
And yet you claim to be an "active" mechanical engineer and would lead us to believe you have an open and scientific mind...
PW
Link I posted in other thread some time ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Urnoer7w4wM
-
The way NASA works is to keep every group completely departmentalized. Your team is to build a Rover. My team built the thrusters etc. Now everything is assembled. Once the Rocket is launched everyone works completely from data received to understand the status of the mission. The data can either be real or simulated.
So all they had to do was build a rocket, fly up to space, orbit around a few times and come back home. In the mean time transmit a bunch of fake data back and play some pre-recorded video that was projected at a low lumen 640 * 480 onto a screen in Black and White and then filmed off that screen by the various TV networks. The only people who needed to know were the Astronauts, the president and a handful of people including the guy who streamed the fake video from the Parkes radio telescope in Australia that was actually damaged by a storm that morning. The reason they needed to use such a huge dish and no one else could receive the signal was because apparently the astronauts did not even have an antenna large enough to transmit a signal to earth.
Did I mention that I built a 50K Watt water powered generator, Here is a video and the data to prove it WWW.GDSTECHNOLOGIES.COM
Wow, do some research...
There was a worldwide tracking network located so Apollo could be tracked during all times of day and night on Earth.
As well, the Russians had there own tracking network used for their moon missions and also kept an eye on Apollo.
Amateur radio operators were also able to track/receive transmissions from Apollo.
Everyone would have noticed if Apollo never left orbit...
PW
-
Actually, regarding the flags, it appears they were indeed off the shelf nylon flags:
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/ApolloFlags-Condition.html
PW
-
For work that I do here I have an entire library of woven metal mesh. I have stainless steel, bronze, brass, copper, aluminum, Monel, Nickel and a few more exotic materials with weaves up 1200 wires per inch. Some of these mesh are more flexible than and feel softer than a lot of synthetic cloth weaves.
NASA used a lot of woven mesh in various applications. Some of the most expensive, and at the time, leading edge technology, were used in the glove of the space suit. On the LEM, for example, the darker material of thermal insulation seen on the outside in the areas of the nozzle exhaust incorporated a nickle mesh.
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.
PW
A mechanical engineer of any kind, which apparently you are not, would be able to look at the design of the LEM, including those outer panels you scoff at, and appreciate the high degree of research, design, and engineering that went into the design solution arrived at. The outer panels are like a lightweight tent suspended away from the inner structures. They are connected to the inner structure by standoffs using as few of them as possible to reduce thermal conduction between the outer and inner walls. The outer panels were overlapped, somewhat like shingles, and where they overlapped, the panels were chemically milled to reduce their thickness to reduce unnecessary weight.
I can see i am going to have to dig up my old pictures of the gas/diesel power turbine i was a part of constructing,and show you how easy it is to apply insulation and cladding neatly,and withstand temperatures far greater than the LEM would have ever seen.
Then you seem to think that the lunar rover would be very hard to design and build to withstand G forces on take off,handle the pressure to vacuum drop in space,along with a mix of other thing's,but at the same time,have us all believe that those piles of junk can do it with ease :D
I actually wasted a few moments of my life and watched the "analysis" of the first two images discussed in this video. They are very keen on being focused on and discussing, the background, but it is the foreground that one should instead pay attention to.
Indeed.
I am guessing that you were thinking i posted that video,and provided a link to the very pictures use in that video,to show the Lunar module changing position-right?. But what dose it show you?-and in almost every picture that shows a great distance to the background hills/mountains-->thats right-false background drops added to the photographs. So i thank you for pointing out the obvious PW.
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.
Mmm,well i will admit that i am not sure on that one PW,and the reason being the following.
As space is an !almost! perfect vacuum,there would be no cooling by way of convection. So as the sun light heated 1 half of the space craft,and the other half that was in the sun light,is now in the shadowed side,how is that heat removed from that half of the space craft--it cannot be by way of convection,and there is only the other half of the space craft to conduct it's heat to,but that half is in the sun,and heating up. So how is the heat collected from the sun dissipated from the space craft PW ?. We know here on earth that the heat would be dissipated by way of convection due to our atmosphere,but how is it dissipated in the vacuum of space where there would be no convection dissipation ?.
And just exactly how can you determine what the flag is made from by just looking at it?
Are you kidding me PW ?.
Do you not know polyester when you see it?. It is certainly not aluminum foil of some sort.
Brad
-
In recent posts you asked what the temperature on the moon was and I provided you with the extremes that I have seen published (+/-200C). Those temperature extremes are of the lunar surface temperature. There is no "air" so there is no other temperature to discuss. The temperature of any object on the moon will depend on its reflection and absorption properties with regard to the solar flux to which it is exposed.
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. They are typically made from two walls of glass separated by a vacuum. No heat can flow thru the vacuum by conduction. But, thermal (infrared) radiation can flow thru the vacuum so the walls are typically metalized so as to reflect and prevent the flow of radiated heat.
So, now you are standing on the moon, in a vacuum thermos, so to speak. Your temperature will depend for the most part on what you are wearing and whether you are in the direct sun or in a shadow. If you are wearing a layered spacesuit that has reflective layers designed to efficiently reflect visible, IR, and UV wavelengths, even while standing in the direct sun, you will experience only a moderate rise in temperature. In fact, if an astronaut has his back to the sun, his hands would be in his own shadow and would become cold very quickly.
Similarly, the LEM only needs to reflect away as much solar flux as possible using its outer layer of panels. They are not perfect reflectors so their temperature will slowly climb. As their temperature increases, they will tend to radiate away heat from their inner surface. To reduce the flow of radiated heat, a layered thermal barrier (IR barrier) of insulation is suspended between (not touching) the inner and outer wall panels. Because of the vacuum, the only other heat flow path between the inner and outer walls of the LEM is by way of conduction thru the standoffs that support the outer wall panels away from the inner wall. A minimum number of standoffs were used to reduce this conductive heat path, and is why the outer panels have very few attachment points and are effectively draped over the inner structure in a tent like fashion. The gold metalized mylar films used to wrap the struts and lower sections of the lander are also used to reflect infrared wavelengths and prevent those areas of the lander from becoming excessively hot.
You have asked how the astronauts handled the extreme cold of the lunar night. A lunar day and lunar night are each 2 weeks long. The astronauts were never on the moon during a lunar night. In fact, NASA timed the lunar landings to occur during the lunar dawn (morning). The surface temperature at that time was still relatively cool.
(Surely the phases of the moon were explained to you in grade school science class. Were you paying attention? Does "28 days" ring a bell?)
PW
Once again you demonstrate an extreme ignorance of the subject matter.
In the vacuum of space or on the surface of the moon, there is no "air" to support conduction or generate convection. All heat flow is by way of radiation and absorption.
I demonstrate an extreme ignorance?.
First up,conduction of heat is by way of absorption. When you have a hot piece of metal,and you place that hot piece of metal on a cold piece of metal,then some of the heat from the hot piece will conduct through to the cold piece,and the cold piece will absorb some of the heat from the hot piece-->the two are the same when heat transfer is by way of physical contact. You asked me how i was going to keep the electric motors cool,and my response was in regard to this,and i was talking about dissipating the heat from the motors through the !all metal! wheels to the moon's surface-->thus the question on how hot is the moons surface in sun light.
Convection and radiation are also the same in this case,where we are talking about the subject matter of dissipating heat in a vacuum. Both convection and radiation of heat are by way of transfer by mass motion of a fluid such as air or water when the heated fluid is caused to move away from the source of heat, carrying energy with it. Convection above a hot surface occurs because hot air expands, becomes less dense, and rises. As there is no air /atmosphere on the moon or in space,then there is no heat dissipation by way of convection-->as i have already stated in previous post.
So who is demonstrating an extreme ignorance of the subject matter ?.
Brad
-
I am sorry Tinman, but my respect for any intellectual prowess I may have credited you with in the past is dwindling rather quickly. In fact, I am finding it hard to believe you were ever 27 years old.
With only the slightest amount of research into the design of the Apollo space suits, you would not be asking this silly question or poking fun using the Michelin man.
And yet you claim to be an "active" mechanical engineer and would lead us to believe you have an open and scientific mind...
PW.
I must say the same in your direction PW.
Maybe go back and read some of the thing's you posted.
E.G
1- your dispute in regards to my termination of convection and conduction of heat in relation to the subject at hand-->who is correct there?
2-The video i posted,where as you said we need to pay attention to the forground--which changes,and yet the back ground remained exactly the same--how is that i wonder?
3-You asking me how i came to the conclusion that the flag was some sort of polyester/plastic material--who was right on that one?.
4-and now the space suit. For this i ask you to post the pressure differential between the inside of the space suit,and the outside of the space suit. Use PSI if you can,and let's see what pressure these space suit's had to withstand. Once we have that pressure differential,we can produce a replication,and see it that material composite can withstand that pressure. Then we can also try and work out as to why the space suits do not puff up like the Michelin man. The picture provided shows no sign's of the space suits being under extreme pressure,and yet we know that the men inside will not be subject the the very low pressure of space,and it will be a low pressure,as 0 pressure can only be obtained in an absolute vacuum--which space is not,but very close too.
Brad
-
I can see i am going to have to dig up my old pictures of the gas/diesel power turbine i was a part of constructing,and show you how easy it is to apply insulation and cladding neatly,and withstand temperatures far greater than the LEM would have ever seen.
Which would have next to nothing to do with the requirements of spaceflight.
Could you even model the degree of protection needed to prevent damage from micrometeorite strikes and as well do it with not one gram more weight than is necessary? Would you even be able to accurately model micrometeorite strike or thermodynamic requirements? If you cannot appreciate the engineering used in the LEM, it only reflects on your limitations. As a mechanical engineer, you should be in awe of the task that was at hand and the simple yet heavily tested and well engineered solutions arrived at.
The fact that you think you could do better with regard to spaceflight, is delusional.
Then you seem to think that the lunar rover would be very hard to design and build to withstand G forces on take off,handle the pressure to vacuum drop in space,along with a mix of other thing's,but at the same time,have us all believe that those piles of junk can do it with ease :D
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. That you feel yourself qualified to critique the Apollo designs is in itself delusional.
Indeed.
I am guessing that you were thinking i posted that video,and provided a link to the very pictures use in that video,to show the Lunar module changing position-right?. But what dose it show you?-and in almost every picture that shows a great distance to the background hills/mountains-->thats right-false background drops added to the photographs. So i thank you for pointing out the obvious PW.
And now you would have me believe that you are an imaging expert as well...
Mmm,well i will admit that i am not sure on that one PW,and the reason being the following.
As space is an !almost! perfect vacuum,there would be no cooling by way of convection. So as the sun light heated 1 half of the space craft,and the other half that was in the sun light,is now in the shadowed side,how is that heat removed from that half of the space craft--it cannot be by way of convection,and there is only the other half of the space craft to conduct it's heat to,but that half is in the sun,and heating up. So how is the heat collected from the sun dissipated from the space craft PW ?. We know here on earth that the heat would be dissipated by way of convection due to our atmosphere,but how is it dissipated in the vacuum of space where there would be no convection dissipation ?.
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. Do you believe the space shuttle or the ISS were/are real? Do you believe those geosynchronous satellites beaming weather and video to you are real? How about those LEO GPS sats? They all have to deal with the issue of getting rid of heat in space. I have provided clues to the answers in discussing an astronaut on the moon, but really, 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.
This is like you saying that scientists have it all wrong when you have know idea or understanding of what it is those scientists know.
Are you kidding me PW ?.
Do you not know polyester when you see it?. It is certainly not aluminum foil of some sort.
No, I am not kidding, you cannot tell what that material is just from looking at the image.
-
I must say the same in your direction PW.
Maybe go back and read some of the thing's you posted.
E.G
1- your dispute in regards to my termination of convection and conduction of heat in relation to the subject at hand-->who is correct there?
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?
2-The video i posted,where as you said we need to pay attention to the forground--which changes,and yet the back ground remained exactly the same--how is that i wonder?
In that video, I watched the discussion related to the first two image comparisons. Sure the perspective of the distant objects changed very little, but it was obvious from the changes to the foreground that the two pictures were taken from different positions.
3-You asking me how i came to the conclusion that the flag was some sort of polyester/plastic material--who was right on that one?.
And although you may have been right, there is no way to tell what the material is from an image. I am glad you are not my defense lawyer (or prosecutor for that matter).
4-and now the space suit. For this i ask you to post the pressure differential between the inside of the space suit,and the outside of the space suit. Use PSI if you can,and let's see what pressure these space suit's had to withstand. Once we have that pressure differential,we can produce a replication,and see it that material composite can withstand that pressure. Then we can also try and work out as to why the space suits do not puff up like the Michelin man. The picture provided shows no sign's of the space suits being under extreme pressure,and yet we know that the men inside will not be subject the the very low pressure of space,and it will be a low pressure,as 0 pressure can only be obtained in an absolute vacuum--which space is not,but very close too.
Seriously? If you did even the slightest bit of research, or even watched the link I have provided twice now, you would know that the pressure differential you are asking about is zero psi. That white outer suit is a non pressurized layer, a coverall if you prefer, and it is not pressurized. The pressure suit is a separate suit/layer inside the white outer suit. Would you really want to risk puncturing your pressure suit by wearing it on the outside?
That you did not know this yet somehow feel qualified to critique everything Apollo just amazes me...
-
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.
What is the temperature of outer space? (hint: "Mars ain't the kind of place place to raise your kids, in fact its...")
Why did the space shuttle open the bay doors and point them away from the sun soon after it reached orbit?
Spoiler alert:
From http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/shutref/structure/baydoors.html
The payload bay doors are opened shortly after orbit is achieved to allow exposure of the environmental control and life support system radiators for heat rejection of the orbiter's systems.
...The forward 30-foot sections of both doors incorporate radiators that can be deployed; they are hinged and latched to the door inner surface in order to reject the excess heat of the Freon-21 coolant loops from both sides of the radiator panels when the doors are open. An electromechanical actuation system on the door unlatches and deploys the radiators when open and latches and stows the radiators when closed. The radiators may be left in the stowed position for a given flight and will only radiate the excess heat from the one side. Fixed radiator panels are installed on the forward end of the aft payload bay doors and radiate from one side only. Kitted fixed radiator panels may be installed on the aft end of the aft payload bay doors when required by a specific mission; they also will radiate from only one side.
Objects in space hotter than space, radiate heat out into space.
ISS cooling:
http://www.space.com/21059-space-station-cooling-system-explained-infographic.html
-
Which would have next to nothing to do with the requirements of spaceflight.
Could you even model the degree of protection needed to prevent damage from micrometeorite strikes and as well do it with not one gram more weight than is necessary? Would you even be able to accurately model micrometeorite strike or thermodynamic requirements? If you cannot appreciate the engineering used in the LEM, it only reflects on your limitations. As a mechanical engineer, you should be in awe of the task that was at hand and the simple yet heavily tested and well engineered solutions arrived at.
The fact that you think you could do better with regard to spaceflight, is delusional.
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. That you feel yourself qualified to critique the Apollo designs is in itself delusional.
And now you would have me believe that you are an imaging expert as well...
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. Do you believe the space shuttle or the ISS were/are real? Do you believe those geosynchronous satellites beaming weather and video to you are real? How about those LEO GPS sats? They all have to deal with the issue of getting rid of heat in space. I have provided clues to the answers in discussing an astronaut on the moon, but really, 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.
This is like you saying that scientists have it all wrong when you have know idea or understanding of what it is those scientists know.
No, I am not kidding, you cannot tell what that material is just from looking at the image.
I see you have resorted to tactics as used by those like MH-quoting false bullshit. It is sad to see you resort to such tactics PW. I have never said I could design or construct a space flight ready vehicle. In faxt, I have clearly stated that I could not do that on my own-so please stop reverting to these tactics, with the intent on trying to discredit me-as that is just straight lying-and people that read this thread will see that.
I have made a claim that I could design and build a lunar rover type vehicle-twice the vehicle at half the total cost--and I stand by my statement.
Once again-please stop posting lies.
Brad
-
Which would have next to nothing to do with the requirements of spaceflight.
Could you even model the degree of protection needed to prevent damage from micrometeorite strikes and as well do it with not one gram more weight than is necessary? Would you even be able to accurately model micrometeorite strike or thermodynamic requirements? If you cannot appreciate the engineering used in the LEM, it only reflects on your limitations. As a mechanical engineer, you should be in awe of the task that was at hand and the simple yet heavily tested and well engineered solutions arrived at.
The fact that you think you could do better with regard to spaceflight, is delusional.
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. That you feel yourself qualified to critique the Apollo designs is in itself delusional.
And now you would have me believe that you are an imaging expert as well...
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. Do you believe the space shuttle or the ISS were/are real? Do you believe those geosynchronous satellites beaming weather and video to you are real? How about those LEO GPS sats? They all have to deal with the issue of getting rid of heat in space. I have provided clues to the answers in discussing an astronaut on the moon, but really, 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.
This is like you saying that scientists have it all wrong when you have know idea or understanding of what it is those scientists know.
No, I am not kidding, you cannot tell what that material is just from looking at the image.
Once again-as I said-I am not sure, and so I asked you the questions I did. But once again you take a hostile approach toward me, in stead of answering the questions. Do you know the thermodynamic properties on the moons surface?--are you saying I am wrong about conduction and convection heat dissipation on the moon?.
-
I don't quote any BS that I am aware of. Brad, you are clearly out of your league and PW knows what he is talking about and you don't when it comes to a lot of issues that have been put on the table. You haven't made a credible case at all and the only people that are going to believe you are the same type of people that are convinced that the WTC towers were wired with explosives.
You are not wise enough to state when you are out of your league. You are clearly not a mechanical engineer.
-
I see you have resorted to tactics as used by those like MH-quoting false bullshit. It is sad to see you resort to such tactics PW. I have never said I could design or construct a space flight ready vehicle. In faxt, I have clearly stated that I could not do that on my own-so please stop reverting to these tactics, with the intent on trying to discredit me-as that is just straight lying-and people that read this thread will see that.
I have made a claim that I could design and build a lunar rover type vehicle-twice the vehicle at half the total cost--and I stand by my statement.
Once again-please stop posting lies.
Brad
A "lunar rover type vehicle" would, by definition, have to be suitable for use on the moon. And, of course, it would have to get there somehow...
PW
-
I don't quote any BS that I am aware of. Brad, you are clearly out of your league and PW knows what he is talking about and you don't when it comes to a lot of issues that have been put on the table. You haven't made a credible case at all and the only people that are going to believe you are the same type of people that are convinced that the WTC towers were wired with explosives.
You are not wise enough to state when you are out of your league. You are clearly not a mechanical engineer.
We shall see about that MH.
As i stated before,you are to bias to be making any comments toward the moon landing's.
In regards to the WTR-well enjoy,as funny as this may seem,it is absolutely true--right down to the military exercise being carried out not to far away,to simulate a terror attack by way of planes flying into buildings. It is also a fact that the point of impact at the pentagon just so happened to be the very same group[ of offices where the accounting of the missing billion's(or was it trillions?) of dollars by the military were taking place. I know-I know--it's all just coincidences ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l47D5ISemds
But this is far as we go in regards to 9/11,as this thread is about man going to the moon,and the conditions in which they managed to do what they can do today--!!that we know of!!
If anyone else posted what PW has posted,you would be onto them like a fly on sh-t.
Brad.
-
If anyone else posted what PW has posted,you would be onto them like a fly on sh-t.
What is it that I have posted that you find so incredulous or lacking in veracity?
PW
-
A "lunar rover type vehicle" would, by definition, have to be suitable for use on the moon. And, of course, it would have to get there somehow...
PW
Of course it would have to opperate on the moon,as if it didnt,then it wouldnt be a lunar rover ;)
As far as it getting there-well that is of no concern to me. My job is to design,develop ,and test the vehicle. This is how it was,and this is why the cost were so high--so many different departments for one mission. The lunar rover's them self would have had a stream of different departments to bring to reality one vehicle. How it got to the moon was of no concern to them,as long as they stuck within size and weight requirements. This was really a big waste of money,and just go's to show how each person is limited by knowledge. As i said(and stand by),i could build twice the machine with half the budget. If i am going to be the designer,constructor,and tester of the vehicle,then i am entitled to half of what the total cost for each vehicle was-->4.5 million.
Anyway,lets go over a few things here,that has popped up in the thread. Lets work out this thermal
issue the scientific way,in stead of just blindly posting stuff in order to stick to your need to believe.
First,lets recap on some of your comments toward me.
Quote Even though you have provided no credible evidence to support your assertions that the Apollo missions did not happen, what, exactly, would you accept as proof that the Apollo missions did happen? What evidence would be sufficient to change what has become your "beliefs"?
Answer-evidence not supplied by NASA--and we are talking evidence,not word's-->as is expected from any one here making extraordinary claims. I might add that i have provided more evidence to disprove the !man on the moon! landing's than has been provided by anyone that thinks man did walk on the moon.
Quote: Like I said, the cost of the hardware to actually build the rovers was insignificant compared to the cost to design, test, and certify the operation of the rovers. Please don't feel the need to start spouting what you believe to be a rover design suitable for launch to and operation on the moon. Do you seriously think yourself qualified to perform even the thermodynamic analysis necessary to design your thermal management system? Do you know how innovative and yet elegantly simple the rover's thermal management system was?
Well we will see about the thermal management needed. This we will do !if! you can put aside you need to believe that man walked on the moon. Lets use science in stead of being so bias PW.
Quote: The fact that you cannot see the engineering marvels used in the deigns of the very simple lunar rover used during Apollo only indicates that you do not understand the difficulty of the task.
The fact that you cannot use science due to being bias toward the subject at hand,only makes these determinations more difficult. I would of thought(hoped) that you PW,could look at this from a scientific point of view.
Quote: That you "think" you could do better or cheaper has no bearing on whether Apollo did or did not happen and only erodes your credibility.
And how dose it do that. What has the ability of being able to build a vehicle that will operate on the moons surface got to do with man being able to travel too and walk on the moon?. How did you manage to convert my claim of my ability to build a vehicle that will operate on the moon,to being the reason i believe man did not walk on the moon?. The claim is there were a few moon walking missions well before the lunar rovers,so i am lost how you came about that statement?.
Quote: But, how about before YOU go any further you address the refutation of your claims regarding the Van Allen belts?
This claim was not mine,it was the claim of both NASA commanders and engineers,and the fact back then they had no idea as to what the effects would be on the astronaut's--some of the astronauts did not even know they went through them-->how well trained were they?.
In regards to the astronauts staying warm during the night,and cool during the day.
Quote: This question can only be asked from a position of extreme ignorance of the subject matter.
Perhaps you should take the time to learn a bit more about the Apollo missions before trying to prove they did not happen...
Or perhaps it is you PW that needs to do a little more scientific research into dissipating heat in a vacuum ?--we shall see soon enough-->using science.
Quote: The best images to date of the Apollo landing sites are from LROC and what you have seen is as good as it gets (the image TK recently posted for example).
And would this kind of image be accepted to verify an OU device? How much do you guys hate grainy video's on the so called !free energy! devices--how much do guys like MH trash those types of video's as absolute rubbish. But here you are PW,MH,and TK,trying to now tell us that a picture like this proves we went to the moon-->do you see what i mean by being bias causes you to throw all your !otherwise! scientific stature out the window. Dose the image below prove that i went to the moon to verify the moon landing's. It took me 3 minutes (on windows paint of all programs) to paste in my lunar lander,and new rover track's.
Quote: Your lack of appreciation for the rover's engineering astounds me. Go for it, show us your thermal management calculations and engineering solutions.
My research starts here PW-with you,and what you believe you know-or think you know. Once you understand the environment of space and the moon,you will begin to understand just how easy it is to make a lunar ready vehicle.
Quote: I would think that an "active" or "passive" mechanical engineer such as yourself (whatever that actually means) should be able to appreciate what goes into a design like the rover. Even an appreciation for the complexity involved in just designing an appropriate "shake and bake" test seems to escape you.
Passive engineer--some one like MH,who sits in a chair in an office,and decides what will and will not work,based around what he has learnt from school and book's.
Active engineer-some one that installs the ready made product on site,that was constructed at an engineering workshop based around the passive engineers parameters,and then makes the modifications on site(along with his team of mechanical fitters) needed for that component to operate correctly in situation.
An active engineer is also an engineer that designs,builds,and installs equipment on site as needed.
So passive= desk jockey engineer
Active= hands on real world engineer.
Anyone that has installed machinery/equipment on site ,will know what im talking about.
Quote: As far as the surface temperature where the photo is placed, I do not know what it was at that specific time, do you? However, like asking about how the astronauts survived at "night", if you did a bit of research, some of this would be way more obvious to you.
I am beginning to wonder if you pay any attention at all to what your shown PW. The research needed is in the picture. This is where some one like your self should be able to closely determine as to where the sun's position is. I can do that,why cant you?
I have been doing plenty of research PW,and i feel that you may need to do a little more your self--in stead of just relying on what NASA tells you.
Quote: Astronauts have remarked, somewhat tongue in cheek, about how thin even the inner walls of the LEM were and that they were a bit concerned over how easily they might be punctured. Nothing was made any heavier than it absolutely had to be. Anywhere weight could be saved it was. Space is not easy.
And you were worried about my lunar rover coping with the moons environment :D
Quote: And just exactly how can you determine what the flag is made from by just looking at it?
PW,if you cant tell the types and see the difference in different types of simple/everyday materials,then perhaps some glasses to improve your vision?.
Quote: Once again you demonstrate an extreme ignorance of the subject matter.
I do not think the ignorance is on my behalf PW.
Quote: In the vacuum of space or on the surface of the moon, there is no "air" to support conduction or generate convection.
I have already stated long before that the convection of heat is not possible in space or on the moon for the very reason you posted above. How ever,you are wrong about no conduction of heat in the subject matter at hand. Heat can be conducted from one material or surface to another,when those two materials have physical contact. This was in regards to your question as to how i would keep the drive motors cool on my lunar vehicle,and why i asked you how hot the surface of the moon would be in direct sun light. You seem to want it both ways PW,and we will come to that when we get to specific details in regards to dissipating heat. Remember,you have already stated that(for some reason?)heat can be dissipated out into the vacuum of space :o. Anyway,we will get into that soon enough.
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.
And bing-there is the money shot right there-->you have just contradicted your self,but yet unaware of it ??? Hows things looking now MH?.
Anyway,that is enough for one post--onto the next where we look at heat dissipation.
Brad
-
Quote: I am sorry Tinman, but my respect for any intellectual prowess I may have credited you with in the past is dwindling rather quickly. In fact, I am finding it hard to believe you were ever 27 years old.
Just insult after insult-hey PW.
Oh-in regards to my saying that the flags were of a nylon/plastic material
Quote: Actually, regarding the flags, it appears they were indeed off the shelf nylon flags:
Now who has been doing his research?. Are you one of the guys that has ever claimed that the flags where some sort of aluminum composite material ?,as being the reason they maintain that wrinkle shape,or appear to be blowing in the breeze?. So ,from the link you provided in regards to the flag.
Quote:The (Apollo 11’s) flag is probably gone. Buzz Aldrin saw it knocked over by the rocket blast as he and Neil Armstrong left the moon 39 summers ago. Lying there in the lunar dust, unprotected from the sun’s harsh ultraviolet rays, the flag’s red and blue would have bleached white in no time. Over the years, the nylon would have turned brittle and disintegrated.
Quote: Historian Anne Platoff) believes the first two (flags) from Apollo 11 and 12 did not survive the ignition gases of the lunar liftoff …
Are you happy with that information PW?.
Lets have a look at what that information tells us,and why you need to have the ability to take a really good look at what these !!so called!! experts are telling you. So they say that the flags red and blue colors would have bleached in no time,just because it was now lying on the surface of the moon,and not standing up. So,dose an object receive more heat energy standing up and receiving direct sun light,or more heat energy lying down on the surface of the moon (which is now shaded by the flag it self),and out of direct sun light?. Now,remember you said that the moons surface is a very poor conductor of heat,and so the area now shaded by the flag lying on top of it would not draw in much heat from the surrounding surface area-due to the poor conduction properties you stated. So if you have a good look at what they claim in that link you provided,you should be able to work out that it's crap,as the flag that is now lying down on the surface of the moon that is now shaded would not see anymore heat than it would standing up. In fact,it would only receive the bulk amount of heat from the sun,when the sun was in the noon(12 o.clock position,where as when it was standing up,it would receive the same dose of heat both in (what we would call) mornings and afternoons,and the least amount while the sun was in the mid day position.
Now-the really good part-and maybe you will see how these clowns continually contradict them selves.
Quote: Buzz Aldrin saw it knocked over by the rocket blast as he and Neil Armstrong left the moon 39 summers ago-And-.--Historian Anne Platoff) believes the first two (flags) from Apollo 11 and 12 did not survive the ignition gases of the lunar liftoff …
Really ::) So now with this information at hand PW,we can raise a very long debated question.
First-what kind of thrust and volume would we have from each rocket engine?. The lunar lander has to supply enough thrust to gently lower all the equipment and the two separate modules to the moons surface,and the lunar escape module has to lift it self and the two astronauts back into space-so a lot less weight,but at the same time we are raising a mass,in stead of lowering it. I think though,you would have to agree that the lunar lander rocket was producing more thrust,and ejecting a higher volume of mass.
So now the question that has been asked so many time's,and the answer we get to resolve the question at hand.The question being-->why is there no blast crater under the lander's rocket engine?
Quote: it was throttled down to below 3,000 lbs as it neared the lunar surface-and in a vacuum exhaust gases expand rapidly once exiting the engine nozzle."
It is estimated that the particles that were ejected from under the lunar lander where traveling at speed's of over 1000 m/sec-or 3600KPH.
Lets say the answer is the reason no blast crater is formed under the lunar modules in any of the missions,but we will stick to apollo 11 and 12 for now.
We now have to ask the question-how was there enough thrust/force placed upon the flags from the escape modules rocket engine to knock over the flags,where that flag is a greater distance away from the rocket nozzle of the escape module,than the lunar surface was away from the lander nozzle at shut down,and yet no crater was produced by the landers engine?.
So only a very small amount of loose soil/dust was ejected away from the lunar lander,but the flag's that were firmly implanted into the ground were knocked over by the escape module's engine ::)
So-i decide to agree with the fact that some of this very jagged and sharp edged soil/dust/small rocks are ejected from under the rocket engine,and this ejected mass is traveling at speeds in excess of 3600KPH. We have seen the ejected mass from !!NASA!! video's of the landings,so we know it happen's. This now raises another couple of questions. Below is 4 photographs supplied by NASA-along with the relevant reference numbers(just so as you can check for your self). The first is showing the distance of the flag from the lunar lander of Apollo 11. The second is of one of the foot pads of Apollo 11. The third is of the Apollo 12 mission,and once again shows the distance between the flag and lunar lander. The fourth is of one of the apollo 12 landers foot pad's.
So now we can see the difference in distance of the flags from the ascent module,and compare that with the distance between the landers rocket engine and lunar surface. One has to wonder how exactly the flags were knocked over by a smaller rocket engine that was a a greater distance away from the flags,than the rocket engine that was at a closer distance to loose soil/dust that left no crater at all.
We must also ask-->if material was being ejected from under the lunar landers rocket engine during landing,at speeds in excess of 3600KPH,then 1-why are the foot pads so spotlessly clean,and 2-why is there no damage what so ever to any part of those foot pad's and legs from this sharp/jagged ejecta that was impacting these parts of the lander at over 3600KPH?
I am sorry Tinman, but my respect for any intellectual prowess I may have credited you with in the past is dwindling rather quickly. In fact, I am finding it hard to believe you were ever 27 years old.
Perhaps you can answer these questions PW.
Like i said--maybe rethink who is doing research here,and who is peddling a bias opinion only--just because of the need to believe.
Brad
P.S--on with the thermal issue next-->remember the material the flags are made of PW.
The flags that stood strong and proud throughout the days of every mission-in direct sun light.
-
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
-
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 :D
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.
-
From:
"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.
"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
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
Horizontal moving like a aerial tram:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTBIr65cL_E
-
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! ;-))
-
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,
PW
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.
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 :D
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
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
-
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 :D One must put aside the books in situations like this-right?.
Brad
-
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
-
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."
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."
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.
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.
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.
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
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
Every time the astronots were asked to "defend themselves" and swear on the bible they walked on the moon, they declined.
So how come the Astronuts won't swear on the bible they walked on the moon? Pretty simple way to defend themselves isn't it ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAbpWaDL4Zc
-
Every time the astronots were asked to "defend themselves" and swear on the bible they walked on the moon.
So how come the Astronuts won't swear on the bible they walked on the moon? Pretty simple way to defend themselves isn't it ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAbpWaDL4Zc
I cannot speak for astronauts, but someone asking me to do that is in effect accusing me of being a liar, which would not go over all that well with me.
-
I cannot speak for astronauts, but someone asking me to do that is in effect accusing me of being a liar, which would not go over all that well with me.
The first thing you are asked to do in any court no matter if you are presenting facts, testifying for or against someone, you are asked to swear on a bible. Swearing on the bible is not an admission of guilt.
If I walked on the moon and someone said they would give me money to donate to my favorite charity if I swore on the bible, I would have grabbed the bible and not even hesitated. I would not have punched the person asking me in the face.
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=16359.msg472221#msg472221 date=1453752174]
Because the 170-popund 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.
Oh please ::)
Is that the best you have MH ?.
Did you forget something MH?--How much did they weigh on the moon again? Didnt think that one through to well-did you. I will do the calculations for you,so as you do not have to think to hard.
170lb + 120lb x 16.5% = 47.85lb. How is your earth quake man looking now?
Now how is your power of observation MH?. Do you see the vertical or horizontal poles moving ,due to your earth quake man bouncing on past?
Poor effort MH--epic fail.
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.
Who needs the dummies book now MH?
The answer to that one is staring you in the face. BTW, it's "does" and "too."
Was it now?
BYW,it's 16.5% of what you would weigh here on earth,when your on the moon :D
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.
PW posted the link that confirmed that the flag's are an !off the shelf! item,so go have this argument with him. Once your done there,go try and buy an !off the shelf! nylon flag that will survive in temperatures higher than 90*C. And of course you can get expensive high temperature nylon,but that is not what !off the shelf! flags are made from.
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.
Well it once again,dose make you look silly MH,as the person you stick by(PW),is the one that posted the confirmation link about what the flag's were--that being !off the shelf! nylon flags.
So no,i didnt blindly assume anything MH. I made an observation from a high resolution picture,and after PW did a bit of research for him self,he found that my observation was indeed correct.
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.
As far as step's go MH,you should take a few step's back,and go read the thread again-so as to stop your self from making more silly mistakes ;)
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.
You go by yourself one of them !off the shelf! high temperature nylon flag's MH--you go get it. ;)
Well, you are making a fool of yourself by contradicting yourself in the question.
As we can all see MH,it is not me making a fool of myself here lol.
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.
I had a feeling you wouldnt answer MH,but in stead just go the !good old! retarded moon conspirator route again. But i give you a little credit for your attempted redirection,although most here will see straight through it.
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.
Yes i do MH.
Once again,the power of observation is a great thing.
We can safely assume that some of the ejected mass(small sharp jagged rocks traveling in excess of 3600KPH) would hit the foot pads and legs that are in this straight laminar flow in a radial pattern you mention. Do you see any damage or dust in the foot bowls,or on the legs MH in the HD pics below?.
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.
And none is going to hit the foot pads or legs on the way past-hey MH ::)
Well I'm calling BS on that.
Lol-really?. The only bullshit is you believing that none of the ejecta is going to hit the legs or foot pads of the lunar lander without doing any damage to either,and without any of that ejecta falling into the bowl shaped foot pads--thats BS right there MH.
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.
And yet all the evidence above says you cannot make simple or accurate judgments based on accurate information supplied.
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.
Im calling you on this one MH,as this is an outright lie.
Please make reference to this bullshit you just posted. I have been the one providing the evidence,and the one asking the question's. It is you and PW that reply with nothing but insult's--but you can never give a straight answer. In fact,you cant even get a simple thing like how much a person and his space suit weighs on the moon correct. In fact,you were way off with the estimated weight of your earth quake man. So who is tripping up MH?--it's not me.
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.
Lol-yes,you watched it on TV--it must be real. ::)
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Flag_Assembly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon
Nylon:
Melting point
190–350 °C
-
Oh please (http://overunity.com/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif (http://overunity.com/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif))
Is that the best you have MH ?.
Did you forget something MH?--How much did they weigh on the moon again? Didnt think that one through to well-did you. I will do the calculations for you,so as you do not have to think to hard.
170lb + 120lb x 16.5% = 47.85lb. How is your earth quake man looking now?
Now how is your power of observation MH?. Do you see the vertical or horizontal poles moving ,due to your earth quake man bouncing on past?
Poor effort MH--epic fail.
I forgot nothing.
This is another one of those "pregnant pause" moments of ignorance on your part. I was quoting the weights of the astronaut and the suit in a purely colloquial sense. You ran with that and took it to it's absurd literal end and used the moon's gravitational acceleration - as if that had anything to do with it - which it doesn't. What's the "m" in f = ma?
So the epic fail is on your side. The only real issue is this: The astronaut and space suit with a combined mass of about 130 kilograms hitting the ground from a jump will impart an impulse of a certain amount of energy into the ground. How much energy is irrelevant, the only thing that counts is that that impulse of energy traveled through the lunar surface and made the pole and the flag attached to the pole shake. It's staring you in the face.
So, for starters you never even considered this. Then, after you were informed of it, you decided that you were "sure" that this wasn't the case. One more time, without any evidence that the pole didn't shake from the astronaut's jump, you have "decided" that it's not the case. It's the only logical and common sense explanation for the flag waving and your behaviour is baffling.
Who needs the dummies book now MH?
Read above.
PW posted the link that confirmed that the flag's are an !off the shelf! item,so go have this argument with him. Once your done there,go try and buy an !off the shelf! nylon flag that will survive in temperatures higher than 90*C. And of course you can get expensive high temperature nylon,but that is not what !off the shelf! flags are made from.
You are making the claims and I am just responding to them. You are supposed to do the work if you make the claim. Fortunately PW is doing the digging, and I can see it was very easy digging at that.
From PW's link: The 428 °F (220 °C) melting point of nylon 6 is lower than the 509 °F (265 °C) melting point of nylon 66.
I don't have to second-guess what the NASA engineers did because I have great respect for them and confidence in them. Clearly you put your foot in your mouth again.
So no,i didnt blindly assume anything MH. I made an observation from a high resolution picture,and after PW did a bit of research for him self,he found that my observation was indeed correct.
Your observation of a high-resolution picture to determine what materials you are looking at isn't worth squat as PW already pointed out to you. That's an example of how disconnected you are. You simply can't look at a picture of something and be sure of what it's made out of. Then some digging shows that it is indeed what you said it was made out of and you claim "victory" as if you were right. No victory to claim, it was just pure dumb luck.
Do you see any damage or dust in the foot bowls,or on the legs MH in the HD pics below?.
The scanned in pictures are inferior to the negatives. Then they are displayed on your monitor. High resolution or not, in that multi-generation image transmission chain there is a certain limit to the resolving power in the final image that your eyeballs were looking at. There is a chance that there is moon dust that you can't see because it is not resolved in the image. And yet you insist that you are sure of yourself and correct! It's the pulse motor times 100! You would not make for a good scientist at all.
The only bullshit is you believing that none of the ejecta is going to hit the legs or foot pads of the lunar lander without doing any damage to either,and without any of that ejecta falling into the bowl shaped foot pads--thats BS right there MH.
I don't have nearly enough information to make any kind of call on that one way or the other. I simply stated that the material would presumably be ejected in a radial laminar flow. For sure a small rock could hit a big rock and bounce back and hit the LEM, I DON'T KNOW. Just like I don't know if there could have been very fine moon dust in the pictures where you are "sure" there is no fine dust. I can only go with my common sense and what I see in the pictures. Is it reasonable to assume that the lander legs and pads were almost or completely unscathed by moon ejecta? I would say YES.
And yet all the evidence above says you cannot make simple or accurate judgments based on accurate information supplied.
Look in the mirror.
m calling you on this one MH,as this is an outright lie.
Please make reference to this bullshit you just posted.
For starters you asked about how hot the LEM would be for the astronauts "at night" when there was no "night" because I think most of the missions lasted a week or less. You clearly thought that there was a 24-hour day/night cycle on the moon which was a pregnant gaffe.
I will skim through and see if I can find some more, you asked for it. But I am not going to read the thread verbatim.
-
Here you go, statements by you that are either out of kilter to say the least, or nonsensical to say the most:
Being that the vehicle will weigh 1/6th of that that it would here on earth,and the lunar terrain is an unknown,then i would use a negative up-positive down adjustable shock absorber.
Maybe we could start with the Van Allen belt's ?,only problem there is,in 1969 NASA (or anyone else) had no accurate information about the belt's,and how deadly they !may! be to human's.
That information in it self raises some interesting question's--like how did the astronauts stay warm at night?
With this,we can carry out many test to confirm what dose and dose not happen in a vacuum. One of the test i cant wait to carry out,is to see if any blast crater is created when a rocket engine gets close to a dusty dry surface in a vacuum.
Well if a picture and plastic bag can survive those temperatures,then how can you say that thermal control is an issue.
Square cut unfinished corners of sheet metal--the flooring base looks like corrugated zincalume sheeting from some farmers hay shed--all the seems are coming apart-->i mean,just look at the wrecks.
The second pic is taken from a further distance--notice any thing missing in the second picture.
Oh,and check out the plastic/nylon flag's in HD. Some say they were an aluminum foil,but as you can see--good old nylon/plastic material,with standard stitching. They seem to hold up well to the extreme temperature's
Im more interested in what the differential pressure was between the inside and outside of the space suits. Looking at the first image,it would appear as though there was none--note all the wrinkles in the suit.
So how is the heat collected from the sun dissipated from the space craft PW ?. We know here on earth that the heat would be dissipated by way of convection due to our atmosphere,but how is it dissipated in the vacuum of space where there would be no convection dissipation ?
You asked me how i was going to keep the electric motors cool,and my response was in regard to this,and i was talking about dissipating the heat from the motors through the !all metal! wheels to the moon's surface
Both convection and radiation of heat are by way of transfer by mass motion of a fluid such as air or water when the heated fluid is caused to move away from the source of heat, carrying energy with it.
Then we can also try and work out as to why the space suits do not puff up like the Michelin man.
PW,if you cant tell the types and see the difference in different types of simple/everyday materials,then perhaps some glasses to improve your vision?
So they say that the flags red and blue colors would have bleached in no time,just because it was now lying on the surface of the moon,and not standing up. So,dose an object receive more heat energy standing up and receiving direct sun light,or more heat energy lying down on the surface of the moon (which is now shaded by the flag it self),and out of direct sun light?
how was there enough thrust/force placed upon the flags from the escape modules rocket engine to knock over the flags,where that flag is a greater distance away from the rocket nozzle of the escape module,than the lunar surface was away from the lander nozzle at shut down,and yet no crater was produced by the landers engine?.
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.
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.
ou 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.
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 ?
170lb + 120lb x 16.5% = 47.85lb. How is your earth quake man looking now?
Once your done there,go try and buy an !off the shelf! nylon flag that will survive in temperatures higher than 90*C.
We can safely assume that some of the ejected mass(small sharp jagged rocks traveling in excess of 3600KPH) would hit the foot pads and legs that are in this straight laminar flow in a radial pattern you mention.
Statements like the above make it very challenging to have a debate.
Honourable mentions:
No,the earth is not in orbit !around! the sun.
Here is todays cost of 1x lunar rover--> $61,353,174.39,__and that is for 1 lunar rover.
Or perhaps it is you PW that needs to do a little more scientific research into dissipating heat in a vacuum ?
What's mars got to do with the thermal values of the vacuum of space?
In fact,you cant even get a simple thing like how much a person and his space suit weighs on the moon correct.
Man landed on the moon multiple times. That's what happened, there is no government conspiracy.
-
What exactly did Mars have to do with this thread?
Indeed....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCf23ZTFaDM
-
Lest we not forget, as our mortality brings about "changes" and we find our "circuits dead",
We must "turn and face the strain" with the grins of all things past:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_M3uw29U1U
-
I forgot nothing.
This is another one of those "pregnant pause" moments of ignorance on your part. I was quoting the weights of the astronaut and the suit in a purely colloquial sense.
What a bunch of crap MH. You quoted that weight to make your stupid assumption look a little better than it would have if you posted the correct weigh--stop trying to save face. You slipped up,and you know it.\
You ran with that and took it to it's absurd literal end and used the moon's gravitational acceleration - as if that had anything to do with it - which it doesn't.
I did not run with it-->i did what you do every time you spend your time looking for other peoples mistakes, i corrected your incorrect attempt at explaining as to why the flag wavered. To say that the moons gravitational acceleration has nothing to do with it--well that just go's to show how stupid you can be some times. If it was the same sort of thing in a different situation,you would tear strips of those trying to peddle such rubbish. But as it is to do with the moon landing's that you firmly believe in,all your sense of reality has been put aside,and you now resort to idiotic explanations to try and justify the impossible <--this can be clearly seen,and hence my saying-the need to believe out weighs the need to know the truth.
So the epic fail is on your side. The only real issue is this: The astronaut and space suit with a combined mass of about 130 kilograms hitting the ground from a jump will impart an impulse of a certain amount of energy into the ground. How much energy is irrelevant, the only thing that counts is that that impulse of energy traveled through the lunar surface and made the pole and the flag attached to the pole shake. It's staring you in the face.
Absolute rubbish MH,and you know it. Anyone with half a brain can clearly see that your talking crap. So now it is up to you to prove your theory. Now you need to go and find on the world wide web,proof of your ridiculous claim. Go watch the video again MH,and point out the pole moving. You will not find one shred of evidence to back up your stupid claim,just like there is no evidence to back up NASA's and the governments claim that man walked on the moon.
So, for starters you never even considered this. Then, after you were informed of it, you decided that you were "sure" that this wasn't the case.
The reason i did not consider it MH,is because out side of your fantasy land it is in no way plausible--in fact,it is ridiculous.
One more time, without any evidence that the pole didn't shake from the astronaut's jump, you have "decided" that it's not the case.
Did the pole shake when the astronaut was bouncing on behind it MH?--did,or can you see the pole shake enough to make the flag flap?. That would be a big fat no in both cases.
It's the only logical and common sense explanation for the flag waving and your behaviour is baffling.
No it's not MH,it only makes sense to the believers,as they do not wish the entertain the fact that the movie was shot here on earth,which would explain the flag wavering with 100% accuracy.
It is your behaviour that is-not baffling,but expected. Now do you see where the bias thing is coming into play MH. You would not be so stupid if it was to do with anything else.
You are making the claims and I am just responding to them. You are supposed to do the work if you make the claim. Fortunately PW is doing the digging, and I can see it was very easy digging at that
Yes,i made the claim about the flag being nylon through the power of observation,and common sense. PW then did some research,and found that i was correct--those are the facts MH-it's all here on the thread for all to see. You are now making a claim that is well beyond reasonable,so now you have to do some digging of your own,and back up your claim with evidence MH--evidence ;)
From PW's link: The 428 °F (220 °C) melting point of nylon 6 is lower than the 509 °F (265 °C) melting point of nylon 66.
To bad the flag's were not made from nylon 6 MH--another misdirection.
Quote: Dennis Lacarrubba, whose New Jersey-based company, Annin, made the flag and sold it to NASA for $5.50 in 1969, considers what might happen to an ordinary nylon flag left outside for 39 years on Earth, let alone on the moon. He thinks for a few seconds. “I can’t believe there would be anything left,” he concludes. “I gotta be honest with you. It’s gonna be ashes.”
Quote: For forty-odd years, the flags have been exposed to the full fury of the Moon’s environment – alternating 14 days of searing sunlight and 100° C heat with 14 days of numbing
Go buy an off the shelf nylon flag MH,and place it in your over set to the lower temperature of 100*C,and see how long it last--i dare ya. ;)
I don't have to second-guess what the NASA engineers did because I have great respect for them and confidence in them. Clearly you put your foot in your mouth again.
Unfortuately MH,it is all here on this thread,and it is clear that it is you that has been putting both feet in there mouth.
Your observation of a high-resolution picture to determine what materials you are looking at isn't worth squat as PW already pointed out to you. That's an example of how disconnected you are. You simply can't look at a picture of something and be sure of what it's made out of. Then some digging shows that it is indeed what you said it was made out of and you claim "victory" as if you were right. No victory to claim, it was just pure dumb luck.
MH-if you cant tell what that type of nylon material looks like when it's right in your face,then you need an optical check. But im guessing you did not use the link i provided,or did any research of your own to check out other close up shot's of the flag. You would have done the opposite to what you are telling me to do,and just sat in your rocking chair,and waited for others to do the work for you.
The scanned in pictures are inferior to the negatives. Then they are displayed on your monitor. High resolution or not, in that multi-generation image transmission chain there is a certain limit to the resolving power in the final image that your eyeballs were looking at. There is a chance that there is moon dust that you can't see because it is not resolved in the image. And yet you insist that you are sure of yourself and correct! It's the pulse motor times 100! You would not make for a good scientist at all.
A bad scientist is like the many we have to day--dare not step out of the field of science into the realm of reality. A bad scientist is one that is bias as to what he thinks is correct,and what actually is correct. Have you not ever bought an off the shelf nylon flag MH? How is the resolution of the pic below?--meet your need's MH. And wait until you get a gander at the next set of pics MH--im guessing you will not see the very obvious duct tape plastered all over the CSM-the space craft that is suppose to have carried man to the moon and back,and then survive the extreme heat of re entry.
I don't have nearly enough information to make any kind of call on that one way or the other. I simply stated that the material would presumably be ejected in a radial laminar flow. For sure a small rock could hit a big rock and bounce back and hit the LEM, I DON'T KNOW. Just like I don't know if there could have been very fine moon dust in the pictures where you are "sure" there is no fine dust. I can only go with my common sense and what I see in the pictures. Is it reasonable to assume that the lander legs and pads were almost or completely unscathed by moon ejecta? I would say YES.
It is far from reasonable to assume that at all,and could never be a reality.
Look in the mirror.
Yes MH,have a !good! look in the mirror.
I will skim through and see if I can find some more, you asked for it. But I am not going to read the thread verbatim.
Of course you wont read the thread verbatim,and that is why you make continual mistakes.
-
Lest we not forget, as our mortality brings about "changes" and we find our "circuits dead",
We must "turn and face the strain" with the grins of all things past:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_M3uw29U1U
And the stars look very different todaaaaay.
I thought they couldnt see the stars from the moon?-->un less they looked through the optics as NA stated many times,but only that we know the view finders were removed from the cameras.
Two good song's but,i enjoyed them. But what do people from other countries sing about?.
How easy was that ;)
The slow motion exit from the lunar lander,the foot print,the space suits,the lunar module and backdrops--all looks so real,and all done in a studio.
And do you understand the message behind the song?.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rr8ljRgcJNM
-
Tinman,
Which video regarding the moving flag are you guys going on about. It's been buried in the thread, can you repost the link?
Regarding the flag versus temp thing, I'd be more concerned about changes due to UV and ionizing radiation.
They would, at the least, be very stiff and brittle I would think, likely bearing little resemblance to the US flag. But with no atmosphere, a portion at the least could indeed still be hanging on.
The "oven test" would need to be done in a vacuum, or at the least, in an inert atmosphere...
PW
-
Tinman,
Which video regarding the moving flag are you guys going on about. It's been buried in the thread, can you repost the link?
Regarding the flag versus temp thing, I'd be more concerned about changes due to UV and ionizing radiation.
They would, at the least, be very stiff and brittle I would think, likely bearing little resemblance to the US flag. But with no atmosphere, a portion at the least could indeed still be hanging on.
The "oven test" would need to be done in a vacuum, or at the least, in an inert atmosphere...
PW
Here is the video in question PW. From 2:30 on
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y
Yes with the flag test being in a vacuum. Maybe with the use of a large spot light as the heat source?.
But the test was more to see at what the material temperature would have to be before it starts to shrivel up.
Brad
-
I have really enjoyed going through the high res pictures of the Apollo mission from this site--real or not,the pictures really make you want to believe that man did make this fantastic journey.
But i will not let !what may be! a wonderful fantasy get in the way of scientific proof-either way.
So for all-enjoy the high res pictures of all missions.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/with/72157658976934006
There was a few !!odd!! pictures i found with the Apollo 17 CSM.
The first is a picture taken from the lunar lander of the CSM. The part you see is the command module.
Now just to keep MH happy,i will not comment on what i see that is covering the command module.
The second picture is a close up of part of the first picture from the link i provided above. You can also see the photo reference number in the first picture,so as you can have a look your self at the exploded view of the picture. When you have found the picture in the gallery from the link i provided above,you simply click on that picture. When you do this,a smaller picture will be displayed. Click again on that smaller picture,and you whole screen will be filled with a HD picture--can take a few seconds before the picture becomes clean--depends on your PCU speed,and internet connection speed. Once you have the exploded view,you simply move your mouse over the picture to view different parts of the picture.
The third picture below is of the CSM in moon orbit. Now we see the CSM skin has a highly reflective surface. Remember-the first picture shows the CSM leaving earth heading for the moon,and the third show's it in orbit around the moon.
I will leave others to determine what they are looking at in the first picture.
Brad
-
Here is the video in question PW. From 2:30 on
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y
Yes with the flag test being in a vacuum. Maybe with the use of a large spot light as the heat source?.
But the test was more to see at what the material temperature would have to be before it starts to shrivel up.
Brad
I watched the video. I believe the flag moved due to being hit by the exhaust from the spacesuit sublimator.
In the video, if you can stand listening to the sound track, you will hear NASA say "coming up on water". The astronauts are being told there EVA must come to an end because the portable life support system (PLSS) is running out of water.
The PLSS used a rebreather and CO2 scrubber. Oxygen, as a consumable, was rarely the limiting factor regarding EVA time. However, the suits used a "sublimator" for cooling which consumed water and it was that water which was typically the EVA limiting consumable.
Somewhat simplified, the sublimator forces water thru very tiny pores on the inside of a cylindrical metal plate. The water freezes. Warm water from the suits garment layer needing to be cooled is run thru tubes in contact with the plate. This "melts" and "boils off" (actually, "sublimates") the water (which does so at a lower temp in a vacuum). A fan is used to purge (blow out) the water vapor from the inside of the cylindrical sublimator.
If I recall correctly, the exhaust for the sublimator is thru a relatively large circular opening in the left side of the PLSS hard shell.
PW
-
Tinman,
Very cool photos!
Thanks...
PW
-
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
Like the one papers on the Balcony, Thunderbirds are also true, because on TV?
-
Looking at another close up of the service module in lunar orbit,we can see blistering of paint arount
the circled areas. This would mean some vary warm temperatures some where along the journey to the moon.
-
What exactly did Mars have to do with this thread?
Indeed....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCf23ZTFaDM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCf23ZTFaDM)
Much better song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMkyhTBPz7Q
Understand deSade or Nietze, check your own polarity, honest and before a real honest mirror, so not a silver plated one, but a a true friend!
-
Looking at another close up of the service module in lunar orbit,we can see blistering of paint arount
the circled areas. This would mean some vary warm temperatures some where along the journey to the moon.
Tinman,
You may be right about that being thermal blistering. Although I don't have time to look into it right now, I wonder if that might be ice. I'll try to find out what that panel is or what's behind it. It does indeed look more like puckered paint though.
Note that the only shiny looking well assembled piece from an aesthetic point of view (that would meet your approval) is the nice and shiny command module. It is the only part of the system that needs to be built tough on the outside for re-entry into the atmosphere. No other components (service module or LM) had to deal with aerodynamic forces (and survive anyway).
PW
-
Tinman,
You may be right about that being thermal blistering. However, although I don't have time to look into it right now, I wonder if that might be ice. I'll try to find out what that panel is or what's behind it. However, it does indeed look like puckered paint.
Note that the only shiny looking well assembled piece from an aesthetic point of view (that would meet your approval) is the nice and shiny command module. It is the only part of the system that needs to be built tough on the outside for re-entry into the atmosphere. No other components (service module or LM) had to deal with aerodynamic forces (and survive anyway).
PW
PW
You do realize that the image i posted(see below) is of the command module that has to carry the astronauts through re entry back to earth ?.
-
PW
You do realize that the image i posted(see below) is of the command module that has to carry the astronauts through re entry back to earth ?.
That is the service module you are looking at. Apollo was three separate pieces. The service module, the command module, and the lunar excursion module.
The only thing that came back to Earth intact was the shiny command module at the front of the service module. The service module detached prior to reentry and burnt up in the atmosphere when it re-entered. The SM had the rocket motor, life support, electrical fuel cells, water, etc, and it was all just thrown away. 'Tis a pity.
Perhaps Elon Musk will get us away from disposable rockets.
EDIT: SORRY, I was referring to a previous photo you posted. I guess we are not talking about the same thing.
The image you just posted with "rescue" on it would not be the service module.
ADDED: The "shiny" part I was referring to is the command module as seen in the third image of your reply 103
PW
-
I have really enjoyed going through the high res pictures of the Apollo mission from this site--real or not,the pictures really make you want to believe that man did make this fantastic journey.
But i will not let !what may be! a wonderful fantasy get in the way of scientific proof-either way.
So for all-enjoy the high res pictures of all missions.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/with/72157658976934006
There was a few !!odd!! pictures i found with the Apollo 17 CSM.
The first is a picture taken from the lunar lander of the CSM. The part you see is the command module.
Now just to keep MH happy,i will not comment on what i see that is covering the command module.
The second picture is a close up of part of the first picture from the link i provided above. You can also see the photo reference number in the first picture,so as you can have a look your self at the exploded view of the picture. When you have found the picture in the gallery from the link i provided above,you simply click on that picture. When you do this,a smaller picture will be displayed. Click again on that smaller picture,and you whole screen will be filled with a HD picture--can take a few seconds before the picture becomes clean--depends on your PCU speed,and internet connection speed. Once you have the exploded view,you simply move your mouse over the picture to view different parts of the picture.
The third picture below is of the CSM in moon orbit. Now we see the CSM skin has a highly reflective surface. Remember-the first picture shows the CSM leaving earth heading for the moon,and the third show's it in orbit around the moon.
I will leave others to determine what they are looking at in the first picture.
Brad
When you post images, would you please provide image numbers? It just takes way too long trying to track down image info without them.
Thanks...
PW
-
That is the service module you are looking at. Apollo was three separate pieces. The service module, the command module, and the lunar excursion module.
The only thing that came back to Earth intact was the shiny command module at the front of the service module. The service module detached prior to reentry and burnt up in the atmosphere when it re-entered. The SM had the rocket motor, life support, electrical fuel cells, water, etc, and it was all just thrown away. 'Tis a pity.
Perhaps Elon Musk will get us away from disposable rockets.
EDIT: SORRY, I was referring to a previous photo you posted. I guess we are not talking about the same thing.
The image you just posted with "rescue" on it would not be the service module.
ADDED: The "shiny" part I was referring to is the command module as seen in the third image of your reply 103
PW
Seriously though does that look like something built with a multibillion dollar budget or something thrown together by a group of people for a studio production.
On take off the rocket was pulling between 3 to 4 g's under that much force, the rocket undergoes a tremendous amount of vibration. Anything not perfectly aerodynamic will simply strip off due to wind resistance. Do you honestly believe that service module wouldn't have simply fallen apart on take off?
Those sheets of metal would peel away in the first 3 seconds. They are obviously not really part of any rocket that launched from earth and nothing more than a studio prop. So why did they use them in the photo's ?
Manufacturing and engineering was far more advanced than that studio prop in 1969. Example Look at how cars were built in 1969, this was the era of the supercars with Ferrari Dino and Lamborghini Miura. You could say but yes this was a "one off" not a production line so here is the 1969 Australian Holden Hurricane concept car only one ever built and it only needed to make it to the local car show and not the moon.
-
That is the service module you are looking at. Apollo was three separate pieces. The service module, the command module, and the lunar excursion module.
The only thing that came back to Earth intact was the shiny command module at the front of the service module. The service module detached prior to reentry and burnt up in the atmosphere when it re-entered. The SM had the rocket motor, life support, electrical fuel cells, water, etc, and it was all just thrown away. 'Tis a pity.
Perhaps Elon Musk will get us away from disposable rockets.
PW
EDIT: SORRY, I was referring to a previous photo you posted. I guess we are not talking about the same thing.
The image you just posted with "rescue" on it would not be the service module.
ADDED: The "shiny" part I was referring to is the command module as seen in the third image of your reply 103
That is correct PW,and the reason for my question. All three pictures i posted are of the command module,so i am just asking as to how that can be,as the ones that look like the command module is covered in duct tape,is as they were leaving earth on the way to the moon. The last picture is taken when they arrive at the moon,and are now in lunar orbit. The other pictures in the earth orbit section,also show big chunk's broken off around the window frame's,but when they get to the moon,we see a nice shinny,well built command module with no broken window frame's. How can this be?.
Brad
-
When you post images, would you please provide image numbers? It just takes way too long trying to track down image info without them.
Thanks...
PW
PW
All most all the images i post have the image number in the lower left corner. There have been only a couple that i have missed,and that is also some times due to it being an expanded view of the image that accompanies it that has the image number attached. only the flag images are the ones that have no number that i can see from a quick look,
Also,what did you make out from the video you asked me to repost about the flag wavering as the astronaut bounced on by.?.
-
Seriously though does that look like something built with a multibillion dollar budget or something thrown together by a group of people for a studio production.
On take off the rocket was pulling between 3 to 4 g's under that much force, the rocket undergoes a tremendous amount of vibration. Anything not perfectly aerodynamic will simply strip off due to wind resistance. Do you honestly believe that service module wouldn't have simply fallen apart on take off?
Those sheets of metal would peel away in the first 3 seconds. They are obviously not really part of any rocket that launched from earth and nothing more than a studio prop. So why did they use them in the photo's ?
Manufacturing and engineering was far more advanced than that studio prop in 1969. Example Look at how cars were built in 1969, this was the era of the supercars with Ferrari Dino and Lamborghini Miura. You could say but yes this was a "one off" not a production line so here is the 1969 Australian Holden Hurricane concept car only one ever built and it only needed to make it to the local car show and not the moon.
Nice car ;)
The pictures of the part of the CSM that looks like it is covered in duct tap, is of the command module-not the service module part of the CSM. The command module is the part that has to survive re/entry,and keep the astronauts safe. If that tape can withstand re/entry-then i want a dozen rolls of it.
Brad
-
PW
All most all the images i post have the image number in the lower left corner. There have been only a couple that i have missed,and that is also some times due to it being an expanded view of the image that accompanies it that has the image number attached. only the flag images are the ones that have no number that i can see from a quick look,
Also,what did you make out from the video you asked me to repost about the flag wavering as the astronaut bounced on by.?.
Tinman,
I have already responded to the flag video. Go back a page...
-
Now just to keep MH happy,i will not comment on what i see that is covering the command module.
Don't hold back now.... What do you see covering the CM?
PW
-
A picture is worth a thousand words, ----- even if none of then are right!
It appears to be increasingly important to prove the moon landings were fake.
What is there to be gained?
Blistered paint from heat! Why only some spots?
More likely a retouched area that blistered form outgassing in the vacuum.
It appears that some are trying to outsmart a group of rocket scientists that put more total hours into a project than a single person could over their lifespan.
If you dedicated your life to first studying all the aspects of these space missions and all the issues of space flight, then you would likely understand the pictures much better.
Missing moon rocks? In fact many of the real moon rocks were destroyed in test, ended up in a personal collection, not displayed as the real rock was stolen or feared might be and many other happenings.
So how does this story end when for every proof of fakery there are several additional proofs it was in fact real.
You really think that only the US was able to monitor the mission and no other country intercepted the video directly from its source as real time proof.
If you do then you probably were not old enough to understand the state of the world at that time or simply played to many video games and cannot distinguish reality.
-
A picture is worth a thousand words, ----- even if none of then are right!
It appears to be increasingly important to prove the moon landings were fake.
What is there to be gained?
Blistered paint from heat! Why only some spots?
More likely a retouched area that blistered form outgassing in the vacuum.
It appears that some are trying to outsmart a group of rocket scientists that put more total hours into a project than a single person could over their lifespan.
If you dedicated your life to first studying all the aspects of these space missions and all the issues of space flight, then you would likely understand the pictures much better.
Missing moon rocks? In fact many of the real moon rocks were destroyed in test, ended up in a personal collection, not displayed as the real rock was stolen or feared might be and many other happenings.
So how does this story end when for every proof of fakery there are several additional proofs it was in fact real.
You really think that only the US was able to monitor the mission and no other country intercepted the video directly from its source as real time proof.
If you do then you probably were not old enough to understand the state of the world at that time or simply played to many video games and cannot distinguish reality.
Very well said...
-
That is correct PW,and the reason for my question. All three pictures i posted are of the command module,so i am just asking as to how that can be,as the ones that look like the command module is covered in duct tape,is as they were leaving earth on the way to the moon. The last picture is taken when they arrive at the moon,and are now in lunar orbit. The other pictures in the earth orbit section,also show big chunk's broken off around the window frame's,but when they get to the moon,we see a nice shinny,well built command module with no broken window frame's. How can this be?.
Brad
"Broken window frame", seriously? Even with all that money available, is it your theory that they could not even afford a decent looking "mock-up" for their Stanley Kubrik'esque production? Don't you think the Russians have had their imaging experts look at all aspects of Apollo? I would wager even the Chinese are looking at everything Apollo as something to improve upon for their upcoming manned moon missions (although I see even they are being called out as fakers regarding their current space program, it never ends...).
A lot of engineering went into everything Apollo, more than most can even begin to comprehend. Even strips of tape were laid down according to a drawing. When you see something you think to be unusual, you can rest assured it is only because you do not understand exactly what or why it is.
However, although we may strive for perfection, it is rarely achieved...
PW
-
Looking at another close up of the service module in lunar orbit,we can see blistering of paint arount
the circled areas. This would mean some vary warm temperatures some where along the journey to the moon.
I am no rocket scientist just a dumb engineer but I would suggest if you look at the nozzle directly to the right of the paint blistering and ask yourself where the heat coming out of that nozzle when burning would hit the surface of the service module you maybe able to hazard at a guess as to why the paint is blistering. Maybe they were doing a blast demo for the cameras.
-
I am no rocket scientist just a dumb engineer but I would suggest if you look at the nozzle directly to the right of the paint blistering and ask yourself where the heat coming out of that nozzle when burning would hit the surface of the service module you maybe able to hazard at a guess as to why the paint is blistering. Maybe they were doing a blast demo for the cameras.
That is very unlikely. The reaction control thrusters only fire in short bursts and are not aimed at the ship.
PW
-
Brad:
Okay here we go....
I did not run with it-->i did what you do every time you spend your time looking for other peoples mistakes, i corrected your incorrect attempt at explaining as to why the flag wavered. To say that the moons gravitational acceleration has nothing to do with it--well that just go's to show how stupid you can be some times. If it was the same sort of thing in a different situation,you would tear strips of those trying to peddle such rubbish. But as it is to do with the moon landing's that you firmly believe in,all your sense of reality has been put aside,and you now resort to idiotic explanations to try and justify the impossible <--this can be clearly seen,and hence my saying-the need to believe out weighs the need to know the truth.
The moon's gravity has "nothing to do with it" because you can ignore it and still make a valid case. Even if there is no gravity, if a 130 kg mass hits the ground at a certain speed there will be a big thud. I am intentionally simplifying because you can in this case. I am ignoring the astronaut's legs acting as a spring. I will repeat to you that you bringing up the equivalent weight of the astronaut in the moon's gravitational field is ridiculous because the important thing to realize is that it's the combined mass of the astronaut and his space suit that counts and not his weight. If you can't acknowledge this then you are just being ridiculous.
I wasn't aware that the space suit was giving off gas to keep the astronaut cool like PW explained. I have to admit that I never thought about how the space suit disposed of excess heat even though I knew that there was a water lining up against the astronaut's skin to remove heat and prevent him from sweating. There are only so many things that you can ponder.
Now that I know that the space suit was off-gassing by sublimating ice to remove heat, I am going to drop my explanation and go with PW's explanation. I was hedging my bets by going with the "ground thump" explanation because that's the only one that I was aware of that solved the mystery.
See, it's not that hard to admit that you are wrong. Are you up to the challenge?
Absolute rubbish MH,and you know it. Anyone with half a brain can clearly see that your talking crap. So now it is up to you to prove your theory. Now you need to go and find on the world wide web,proof of your ridiculous claim. Go watch the video again MH,and point out the pole moving. You will not find one shred of evidence to back up your stupid claim,just like there is no evidence to back up NASA's and the governments claim that man walked on the moon.
There is still some merit to what I said and even though I am now siding with PW's explanation, you can't be 100% sure. There is nothing for me to prove. I don't know the geology of the moon's surface. I know they did these types of tests, I believe most moon missions left seismographs in place. You seem to be arguing that what is essentially a sound wave traveling through the upper surface of the moon's crust is "absolute rubbish." Have you ever experienced an earthquake or do you believe that's all Hollywood special effects? One more time, your line of "anti-reasoning" is baffling.
To bad the flag's were not made from nylon 6 MH--another misdirection.
Quote: Dennis Lacarrubba, whose New Jersey-based company, Annin, made the flag and sold it to NASA for $5.50 in 1969, considers what might happen to an ordinary nylon flag left outside for 39 years on Earth, let alone on the moon. He thinks for a few seconds. “I can’t believe there would be anything left,” he concludes. “I gotta be honest with you. It’s gonna be ashes.”
Quote: For forty-odd years, the flags have been exposed to the full fury of the Moon’s environment – alternating 14 days of searing sunlight and 100° C heat with 14 days of numbing
I don't even know what kind of point you are trying to make here. I think it boils down to this: A nylon flag was planted on the moon. It looked fine for the week or less that the astronauts where there, but over an extended period of time the sun's rays, especially the UV rays, degraded the flag and washed out the colours. Big deal.
MH-if you cant tell what that type of nylon material looks like when it's right in your face,then you need an optical check. But im guessing you did not use the link i provided,or did any research of your own to check out other close up shot's of the flag. You would have done the opposite to what you are telling me to do,and just sat in your rocking chair,and waited for others to do the work for you
I am willing to bet you that nylon, rayon, cotton, or woven plastic fabric, or woven metal fabric would all look essentially identical in a photograph. But that's something that you seemingly can't grasp or will refuse to acknowledge. I have done my fair share of work and if anybody wants to cut corners and not do research take a look in the mirror because you do that quite often when you do an experiment.
A bad scientist is like the many we have to day--dare not step out of the field of science into the realm of reality. A bad scientist is one that is bias as to what he thinks is correct,and what actually is correct. Have you not ever bought an off the shelf nylon flag MH? How is the resolution of the pic below?--meet your need's MH. And wait until you get a gander at the next set of pics MH--im guessing you will not see the very obvious duct tape plastered all over the CSM-the space craft that is suppose to have carried man to the moon and back,and then survive the extreme heat of re entry.
You definitely need to step into the realm of reality. Horror of horrors, "duct tape." Note you are saying "obvious duct tape" because you are falling into your trap again. You are cutting corners and saying it is "duct tape" without actually knowing what it really is. It's the heat shield that has to survive the extreme heat of reentry, not the duct tape.
Of course you wont read the thread verbatim,and that is why you make continual mistakes.
If I make a mistake I'll acknowledge it. If you make a mistake you turn blue, and there have been many.
MileHigh
-
Brad:
I am willing to bet you that nylon, rayon, cotton, or woven plastic fabric, or woven metal fabric would all look essentially identical in a photograph. But that's something that you seemingly can't grasp or will refuse to acknowledge. I have done my fair share of work and if anybody wants to cut corners and not do research take a look in the mirror because you do that quite often when you do an experiment.
You definitely need to step into the realm of reality. Horror of horrors, "duct tape." Note you are saying "obvious duct tape" because you are falling into your trap again. You are cutting corners and saying it is "duct tape" without actually knowing what it really is. It's the heat shield that has to survive the extreme heat of reentry, not the duct tape.
If I make a mistake I'll acknowledge it. If you make a mistake you turn blue, and there have been many.
MileHigh
The moon's gravity has "nothing to do with it" because you can ignore it and still make a valid case. Even if there is no gravity, if a 130 kg mass hits the ground at a certain speed there will be a big thud. I am intentionally simplifying because you can in this case. I am ignoring the astronaut's legs acting as a spring. I will repeat to you that you bringing up the equivalent weight of the astronaut in the moon's gravitational field is ridiculous because the important thing to realize is that it's the combined mass of the astronaut and his space suit that counts and not his weight. If you can't acknowledge this then you are just being ridiculous.
What is ridiculous MH is the fact that you think there is no difference between a mass 1/6th that of a second mass impacting the ground with an acceleration of G that is also 1/6th that of earth.
Do you know how to work out the impact energy difference between what that impact would be here on earth,and what it would be on the moon MH?.
Now-who is being ridiculous?.
I wasn't aware that the space suit was giving off gas to keep the astronaut cool like PW explained. I have to admit that I never thought about how the space suit disposed of excess heat even though I knew that there was a water lining up against the astronaut's skin to remove heat and prevent him from sweating. There are only so many things that you can ponder.
Now that I know that the space suit was off-gassing by sublimating ice to remove heat, I am going to drop my explanation and go with PW's explanation. I was hedging my bets by going with the "ground thump" explanation because that's the only one that I was aware of that solved the mystery.
LOL.
Puppets on string's MH ::)
So you have decided to drop your ridiculous explanation,and head off and join the gang that you deem has a better explanation. But you were so sure your explanation was the only possible explanation MH--it's right here on the thread.
You just jumped out of the pot,and into the fire--to blindly go where many have been before. ;)
First,not enough force from a 2000lb thrust from a rocket engine to make a crater in the moons surface,because the vacuum of space dissipates the gasses to quickly,but a small !puff! of ejected water from a space suit manages to maintain a concentrated jet stream over some distance that has enough force to make a flag waver :o
Lol,you guys just crack me up. I am guessing that both of you know what happens to water as soon as it is subjected to an extreme vacuum as would be encountered on the moon.?.
And you say that im clutching at straw's lol.
See, it's not that hard to admit that you are wrong. Are you up to the challenge?
And for you MH,it dose not seem that hard for you to disregard something you believe in ,to run off and join the camp that seems to have greener pastures. Like i have said before--the self aclaimed guru's always stick together--even if it means disregarding your own beliefs to goin the !seemingly! winning camp. There are only a couple of you that stand alone here,and your not one of them MH--your a puppet on a string.
There is still some merit to what I said and even though I am now siding with PW's explanation, you can't be 100% sure. There is nothing for me to prove. I don't know the geology of the moon's surface. I know they did these types of tests, I believe most moon missions left seismographs in place. You seem to be arguing that what is essentially a sound wave traveling through the upper surface of the moon's crust is "absolute rubbish." Have you ever experienced an earthquake or do you believe that's all Hollywood special effects? One more time, your line of "anti-reasoning" is baffling.
Lol-still trying to peddle that one MH?
What makes 100% sense,it the air disturbance made by the passing astronaut being the cause for the wavering flag. We can replicate that with ease here on earth,and see that it is the most logical explanation there is--and the only one that is plausible.
I don't even know what kind of point you are trying to make here. I think it boils down to this: A nylon flag was planted on the moon. It looked fine for the week or less that the astronauts where there, but over an extended period of time the sun's rays, especially the UV rays, degraded the flag and washed out the colours. Big deal.
My point is this.
PW seems to think that heat was going to be a very big issue when i claimed that i could build a lunar rover that was twice the machine ,at half the cost.
Now heat dose not seem to be an issue,as a bloody nylon flag was able to withstand this heat with no problem at all.
So what;s it going to be--is there an extreme heat issue with the sun striking objects on the moon-or not?. The !off the shelf! nylon flag seems to hold up to the task quite well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeZ_F1op9N8&list=FLsLiBC2cL5GsZGLcj2rm-4w
Brad
-
Do you even bother to check the references I provide for you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTL86Ua8UAM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6dZVM1UuwQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmVxSFnjYCA&list=PLMu_JGF2rQtd7QSZwWBz_pNzThMg2_E0_
etc. etc.
-
What is ridiculous MH is the fact that you think there is no difference between a mass 1/6th that of a second mass impacting the ground with an acceleration of G that is also 1/6th that of earth.
Do you know how to work out the impact energy difference between what that impact would be here on earth,and what it would be on the moon MH?.
Now-who is being ridiculous?.
The short answer is the impact energy would be the same. You clearly haven't read or understood what I said and you are still hooked up on the moon's gravity. But what you really need to do is unscramble what you are saying above and restate it in a coherent way that makes sense.
LOL.
Puppets on string's MH (http://overunity.com/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
So you have decided to drop your ridiculous explanation,and head off and join the gang that you deem has a better explanation. But you were so sure your explanation was the only possible explanation MH--it's right here on the thread.
You just jumped out of the pot,and into the fire--to blindly go where many have been before. (http://overunity.com/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
First,not enough force from a 2000lb thrust from a rocket engine to make a crater in the moons surface,because the vacuum of space dissipates the gasses to quickly,but a small !puff! of ejected water from a space suit manages to maintain a concentrated jet stream over some distance that has enough force to make a flag waver (http://overunity.com/Smileys/default/shocked.gif)
Lol,you guys just crack me up. I am guessing that both of you know what happens to water as soon as it is subjected to an extreme vacuum as would be encountered on the moon.?.
And you say that im clutching at straw's lol.
Off-gassing from the space suit and a small localized moon tremor from the astronaut's impact on the lunar surface are two perfectly reasonable explanations for the waving flag. I learned something the other day and changed my view and you seem to think there is something wrong with that. You don't dare touch PW's explanation because you were ignorant of it just like me, and that probably applies to 100% of the moon conspiracy theorists when discussing the flag. You are making yourself look like a fool when you flat-out deny the possibility of a localized moon tremor.
First,not enough force from a 2000lb thrust from a rocket engine to make a crater in the moons surface,because the vacuum of space dissipates the gasses to quickly,but a small !puff! of ejected water from a space suit manages to maintain a concentrated jet stream over some distance that has enough force to make a flag wave
The above is a ridiculous comparison that is completely invalid and makes no sense. It's just another item to add to that list that I posted of crazy things that you said.
There are only a couple of you that stand alone here,and your not one of them MH--your a puppet on a string.
It's laughable that you accuse me of being a puppet on a string because I learned something new and adapted my views.
My point is this.
PW seems to think that heat was going to be a very big issue when i claimed that i could build a lunar rover that was twice the machine ,at half the cost.
Now heat dose not seem to be an issue,as a bloody nylon flag was able to withstand this heat with no problem at all.
So what;s it going to be--is there an extreme heat issue with the sun striking objects on the moon-or not?. The !off the shelf! nylon flag seems to hold up to the task quite well.
The above is a ridiculous comparison that is completely invalid and makes no sense. It's just another item to add to that list that I posted of crazy things that you said.
-
Do you even bother to check the references I provide for you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTL86Ua8UAM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6dZVM1UuwQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmVxSFnjYCA&list=PLMu_JGF2rQtd7QSZwWBz_pNzThMg2_E0_
etc. etc.
Hi TK
Is there a specific fact you are focusing on with this collection of videos. I could point to 100+ videos saying we faked the moon landings but I think it would be more logical if we focus on a specific piece of evidence.
It would probably make more sense if we treated this like a legal case, Tinman versus NASA. The accusation "NASA lied when they said they walked on the moon."
This way Tinman who is making the accusation or others you support this position can present a piece of evidence saying this proves we could not have gone to the moon because of XXXXXX. They can then prove their point with the supporting facts and data. The defense can then state sorry you are wrong here is our counter evidence and prove their point, with facts and data. We can then move onto the next point.
I think if we keep this at a point by point bases observers can then make an informed opinion using an evidence based reasoning approach.
-
Tinman,
I have the answers to the questions you posed regarding the discrepancies in the images you noted.
The outer wall of the command module is made up of three major heat shields. The aft heat shield is the rear most disc shaped heat shield that most people are familiar with. The other two heat shields are the "crew compartment" and "upper" heat shields, which is pretty much everything in front of the aft heat shield. Those two heat shields are made of a phenolic composite material. This is somewhat similar to the material used in the old brown colored PCB's before FR4 became more common. The heat of re-entry would melt most metals so phenolic was used. Although being what most consider a type of plastic or epoxy like resin, phenolic does not burn or melt. When heated, phenolic will get white hot, char (turn to ash), and then shed the charred material. This process insulates, sinks, and removes heat. Of course, if the heat is applied long enough or the phenolic is thin enough, extreme heat will eventually wear (not burn) thru the material. The thickness required is therefore determined by the expected heat and duration. This type of heat shield is called an "ablative" heat shield because the material "ablates" or is "destroyed" as it shields from heat. The aft heat shield is also an ablative heat shield but is constructed somewhat differently.
Anyway, exclusive of the aft heat shield, the phenolic material used for the CM 's varied in color from an ugly gray to orange brown color. Some of the early Bloc-1 CM's were painted white. The Bloc-2 Cm's however, instead of being painted white, were covered with very thin aluminized Mylar (PET) tape, which gave them their shiny appearance. When looking at the Mylar tape covered CM's under most lighting conditions and/or from a distance, they appear uniformly shiny as if constructed from or covered in metal. But, under certain lighting angles, the individual runs of tape, and any nicked areas patched with smaller pieces of tape, become quite visible (as evidenced by your images). This is a mostly optical phenomenon due to the tape being so thin.
Regarding your "cracked window frame", a somewhat makeshift attempt at adding a glare shield to the edge of those windows was made using the Mylar tape. Although, as you have noticed, the tape tore at the edges, the remaining flap did cut down on glare caused by light striking the .7" thick fused silicon outer window at a shallow angle.
Excluding the launch vehicle, in an earlier post I stated that Apollo consisted of three sections, the SM, CM, and LM. However, an often overlooked section is the Launch Escape System (LES). This attached to the top of the CM using 4 legs attached with explosive (frangible) bolts. Besides pulling the CM away from the rocket during an emergency, the LES had a tightly fitting cork and fiberglass shell that covered most of the CM. The shell of the LES saw the bulk of the aerodynamic forces during launch and protected the CM (and tape) from those forces as well as from the launch heat generated by air friction, which could reach 1200F.
If you go to your flickr site and look at images toward the end of AS17 cassette 145, you will see the CM in a few different lighting angles where you can see the long runs of Mylar tape used to cover the bulk of the two heat shields. Perusing other cassettes and images will provide you with additional evidence in support of this explanation.
PW
-
Tinman,
I have the answers to the questions you posed regarding the discrepancies in the images you noted.
The outer wall of the command module is made up of three major heat shields. The aft heat shield is the rear most disc shaped heat shield that most people are familiar with. The other two heat shields are the "crew compartment" and "upper" heat shields, which is pretty much everything in front of the aft heat shield. Those two heat shields are made of a phenolic composite material. This is somewhat similar to the material used in the old brown colored PCB's before FR4 became more common. The heat of re-entry would melt most metals so phenolic, although being what most consider a type of plastic or epoxy like resin, does not burn or melt. When heated, it will get white hot, char (turn to ash), and then shed the charred material. This process insulates, sinks, and removes heat. Of course, if the heat is applied long enough or the phenolic is thin enough, extreme heat will eventually wear (not burn) thru the material. The thickness required is therefore determined by the expected heat and duration. This type of heat shield is called an "ablative" heat shield because the material ablates or is destroyed as it shields from heat. The aft heat shield is also an ablative heat shield but is constructed somewhat differently.
Anyway, exclusive of the aft heat shield, the phenolic material used for the CM 's varied in color from an ugly gray to orange brown color. Some of the early Bloc-1 CM's were painted white. The Bloc-2 Cm's however, instead of being painted white, were covered with very thin aluminized Mylar (PET) tape, which gave them their shiny appearance. When looking at the Mylar tape covered CM's under most lighting conditions and/or from a distance, they appear uniformly shiny as if covered in metal. But, under certain lighting angles, the individual runs of tape, and any nicked areas patched with smaller pieces of tape, become quite visible (as evidenced by your images). This is a mostly optical phenomenon due to the tape being so thin.
Regarding your "cracked window frame", a somewhat makeshift attempt at adding a glare shield to the edge of those windows was made using the Mylar tape. Although, as you have noticed, the tape tore at the edges, the remaining flap did cut down on glare caused by light striking the .7" thick fused silicon outer window at a shallow angle.
Excluding the launch vehicle, in an earlier post I stated that Apollo consisted of three sections, the SM, CM, and LM. However, an often overlooked section is the Launch Escape System (LES). This attached to the top of the CM using 4 legs attached with explosive (frangible) bolts. Besides pulling the CM away from the rocket during an emergency, the LES had a tightly fitting cork and fiberglass shell that covered most of the CM which saw the bulk of the aerodynamic forces and protected the CM (and tape) from those forces as well as from the launch heat generated by air friction, which could reach 1200F.
If you go to your flickr site and look at images toward the end of AS17 cassette 145, you will see the CM in a few different lighting angles where you can see the long runs of Mylar tape used to cover the bulk of the two heat shields. Perusing other cassettes and images will provide you with additional evidence in support of this explanation.
PW
Thanks for the info PW-makes sense.
I am still a little lost as to how the tape was multi colored when leaving earth, and ended up looking like sjinny chrome by the time they got to the moon.
Brad
-
The short answer is the impact energy would be the same. You clearly haven't read or understood what I said and you are still hooked up on the moon's gravity. But what you really need to do is unscramble what you are saying above and restate it in a coherent way that makes sense.
Off-gassing from the space suit and a small localized moon tremor from the astronaut's impact on the lunar surface are two perfectly reasonable explanations for the waving flag. I learned something the other day and changed my view and you seem to think there is something wrong with that. You don't dare touch PW's explanation because you were ignorant of it just like me, and that probably applies to 100% of the moon conspiracy theorists when discussing the flag. You are making yourself look like a fool when you flat-out deny the possibility of a localized moon tremor.
The above is a ridiculous comparison that is completely invalid and makes no sense. It's just another item to add to that list that I posted of crazy things that you said.
It's laughable that you accuse me of being a puppet on a string because I learned something new and adapted my views.
The above is a ridiculous comparison that is completely invalid and makes no sense. It's just another item to add to that list that I posted of crazy things that you said.
MH
If you believe the impact energy of a mass is going to be the same on the moon as it is here on earth, then you need help.
If you now think that moving over to PWs reason for the flag wavering, then you have just made another mistake. Before blindly believing PWs explanation, you should maybe go do some research into what PW said. But im guessing you wont, and im also guessing that you also paid no attention to what I said about the power of observation.
I have never seen you get so much so wrong in one thread.
Brad
-
Thanks for the info PW-makes sense.
I am still a little lost as to how the tape was multi colored when leaving earth, and ended up looking like sjinny chrome by the time they got to the moon.
Brad
Tinman,
That is an optical property of thin films. Think soap bubbles and oil films on water...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin-film_interference
-
MH
If you believe the impact energy of a mass is going to be the same on the moon as it is here on earth, then you need help.
If you now think that moving over to PWs reason for the flag wavering, then you have just made another mistake. Before blindly believing PWs explanation, you should maybe go do some research into what PW said. But im guessing you wont, and im also guessing that you also paid no attention to what I said about the power of observation.
I have never seen you get so much so wrong in one thread.
Brad
If, when you discuss this topic, you could put a coherent sentence together that makes sense and demonstrates you are aware of what the issues are, it would make a huge difference.
The impact energy of an identical mass hitting the Earth or the moon will be the same if the two impact velocities are the same. It's rocket science.
If you disagree with what PW said about the sublimation of the ice then make your case.
-
Just an interesting factoid I'd like to share regarding thermal management on the rover.
Figuring out a way to keep the electronics on the rover cool while not adding an undesired amount of weight or complexity was an engineering challenge. Various methods were considered but the incredibly simple and very reliable method selected should at least inspire some degree of awe.
The enclosure housing the electronics was insulated and shielded to reduce solar flux. However, the heat generated by the electronics would have caused the internal temperature of that well insulated enclosure to rise to an unacceptably high temperature because the heat dissipated by the electronics was unable to escape thru the insulation.
The brilliant, and very elegant solution arrived at, was to completely fill the electronics enclosure with molten wax. The wax became solid when it cooled. As the rover was operated, the heat generated by the electronics would slowly cause the wax to melt, that is, change phase from solid to liquid. This process took advantage of the latent heat of fusion, and could absorb fairly large quantities of heat while remaining at a fixed temperature. When the rover was parked, an insulated lid on the electronics enclosure would be raised to expose the wax filled enclosure. The insulated lid, when open, also acted as a sunshade and shaded the wax from the sun allowing the wax to radiate its heat into the cold blackness of space and re-solidify. As well, the rover had to be strategically parked to ensure that the lid shaded the wax filled enclosure when the lid was open. Just before use, the lid was closed and it was off to the races.
Imagine the amount of research, science, and engineering required just to select the proper wax formulation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthalpy_of_fusion
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=16359.msg472372#msg472372 date=1453872631
If, when you discuss this topic, you could put a coherent sentence together that makes sense and demonstrates you are aware of what the issues are, it would make a huge difference.
Dido
The impact energy of an identical mass hitting the Earth or the moon will be the same if the two impact velocities are the same. It's rocket science.
But they are not the same-are they MH. Lets have a look at what you said.
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.
Day in/day out,you insist on people here making accurate measurements,and posting accurate data,and yet look what you posted above to try and bring some sort of validity to your earth quake theory. The reality is MH,the combined weight on the moon is 47.85lb. You were over 600% out with your weights.Then you say--
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.
It was not considered because it is just plain wrong,and stupid.
And then once again-even after i corrected you,you go and make the same mistake again--
The astronaut and space suit with a combined mass of about 130 kilograms hitting the ground from a jump will impart an impulse of a certain amount of energy into the ground. How much energy is irrelevant, the only thing that counts is that that impulse of energy traveled through the lunar surface and made the pole and the flag attached to the pole shake. It's staring you in the face.
No MH--NO. The combined weight is 21.45kg's(now that you have gone metric),not 130kg's as you are trying to imply. And once again,the answer is staring me in the face lol.Then once again--
The moon's gravity has "nothing to do with it" because you can ignore it and still make a valid case. Even if there is no gravity, if a 130 kg mass hits the ground at a certain speed there will be a big thud.
No no MH,it is a 21.45 kg mass hitting the ground,and in slow motion like all the video's from NASA show. The impact force will be 600% less than what you are trying to peddle.
And again--
I will repeat to you that you bringing up the equivalent weight of the astronaut in the moon's gravitational field is ridiculous because the important thing to realize is that it's the combined mass of the astronaut and his space suit that counts and not his weight. If you can't acknowledge this then you are just being ridiculous.
Have you completely lost your marbles MH?
The mass may be the same on the moon as it is on earth,but the weight is not due to the lower gravity on the moon. So where will this mass make a bigger impact when dropped from say 1/2 meter? Will the impact energy be greater on earth or on the moon?. If you cant work that out,then you had better throw away those books.--and you say im being ridiculous ::)
The answer was staring me in the face was it MH?. But you turned tail on what you claimed to be the only logical explanation,and felt so strongly that your earth/moon quake man was what was causing the flag to waver. PW pulled the string,and you moved-moved away from your theory that you deem'd so sound, in a flash-->without even bothering to take the time to see if PW's explanation was plausible.
I hope i never have some one like you watching my back if we ever have to go to war.
If you disagree with what PW said about the sublimation of the ice then make your case.
I will leave this for the next post. Did you even bother to do some research of your own MH?
-
Yes, Brad, you have serious issues with communicating properly. Stuff remains locked up inside your head and you don't express it properly and just blindly assume that what you think the debate is about is what is locked up inside your head. Even if somebody else raised the issue, it doesn't matter, and like magic you expect everybody else to just be able to read your mind and figure out what you are really talking about. Everybody is supposed to have a Secret Brad Decoder Ring.
The problem is that the real world doesn't work like that and you have to get with a program to learn to stop inventing your own version of a debate while keeping it locked up in your head. You have to start learning to not change the parameters of a debate in your mind, and to express yourself properly.
Here is what is locked up inside your head: It's a grade 10 Physics question. Two objects of the same mass of 130 kilograms are dropped from 1/2 meter onto the ground. One mass is in the Earth's gravitational field, and the other mass is the moon's gravitational field. Calculate the final velocities of the two objects, how much time it takes for each object to fall, and the amount of kinetic energy in each object the moment before hitting the ground.
That is a trivial problem and I solved it in grade 10.
The problem is that is NOT what the debate is about, period.
I simply said that an astronaut and his space suit hitting the surface of the moon could create a localized tremor in the surface material and that could make the flag move.
I was NOT making any reference to a grade 10 physics problem. I was NOT concerned with the final velocity. I was NOT concerned with the different gravitational accelerations between the Earth and the moon.
The only relevant point is that it is the MASS of the astronaut and space suit that determines the energy in the ground thump, and NOT the weight. You clearly still don't understand that point.
I intentionally switched from pounds to kilograms because pounds is a wishy-washy English unit that can mean weight or mass, whereas kilograms is universally understood to mean MASS ONLY. Clearly you were not aware of that, as in, "The combined weight is 21.45kg's(now that you have gone metric)."
Here is another "lost your marbles" quote from you, "The mass may be the same on the moon as it is on earth,but the weight is not due to the lower gravity on the moon."
Here is another "lost your marbles" quote, "The reality is MH,the combined weight on the moon is 47.85lb. You were over 600% out with your weights."
How many times do I have to tell you that it's the MASS of the astronaut and spacesuit hitting the surface of the moon and NOT the weight that determines the magnitude of the thump? The formula is "Energy = 1/2 MASS x Velocity-squared." Let it sink into your head.
For good measure, another "lost your marbles" quote, "No no MH,it is a 21.45 kg mass hitting the ground."
-
Do you even bother to check the references I provide for you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTL86Ua8UAM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6dZVM1UuwQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmVxSFnjYCA&list=PLMu_JGF2rQtd7QSZwWBz_pNzThMg2_E0_
etc. etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNWs-vlIhdM
;)
-
To sound coherent you can NEVER discuss "kilograms" and "equivalent kilograms in the Moon's gravity." It makes NO SENSE and you are just showing your ignorance. This is never ever done. The term "kilograms weight" which is what you were using sometimes in your discussion is universally frowned upon and basically never used.
Kilograms are MASS and the mass does not change ever, irrespective of the strength of the gravity field. When you want to discuss the equivalent weight then you use Newtons. A mass of 1 kilogram weighs X Newtons in the Earth's gravity and Y Newtons in the moon's gravity.
-
Yes, Brad, you have serious issues with communicating properly. Stuff remains locked up inside your head and you don't express it properly and just blindly assume that what you think the debate is about is what is locked up inside your head. Even if somebody else raised the issue, it doesn't matter, and like magic you expect everybody else to just be able to read your mind and figure out what you are really talking about. Everybody is supposed to have a Secret Brad Decoder Ring.
The problem is that the real world doesn't work like that and you have to get with a program to learn to stop inventing your own version of a debate while keeping it locked up in your head. You have to start learning to not change the parameters of a debate in your mind, and to express yourself properly.
Here is what is locked up inside your head: It's a grade 10 Physics question. Two objects of the same mass of 130 kilograms are dropped from 1/2 meter onto the ground. One mass is in the Earth's gravitational field, and the other mass is the moon's gravitational field. Calculate the final velocities of the two objects, how much time it takes for each object to fall, and the amount of kinetic energy in each object the moment before hitting the ground.
That is a trivial problem and I solved it in grade 10.
The problem is that is NOT what the debate is about, period.
I simply said that an astronaut and his space suit hitting the surface of the moon could create a localized tremor in the surface material and that could make the flag move.
I was NOT making any reference to a grade 10 physics problem. I was NOT concerned with the final velocity. I was NOT concerned with the different gravitational accelerations between the Earth and the moon.
The only relevant point is that it is the MASS of the astronaut and space suit that determines the energy in the ground thump, and NOT the weight. You clearly still don't understand that point.
I intentionally switched from pounds to kilograms because pounds is a wishy-washy English unit that can mean weight or mass, whereas kilograms is universally understood to mean MASS ONLY. Clearly you were not aware of that, as in, "The combined weight is 21.45kg's(now that you have gone metric)."
Here is another "lost your marbles" quote from you, "The mass may be the same on the moon as it is on earth,but the weight is not due to the lower gravity on the moon."
Here is another "lost your marbles" quote, "The reality is MH,the combined weight on the moon is 47.85lb. You were over 600% out with your weights."
How many times do I have to tell you that it's the MASS of the astronaut and spacesuit hitting the surface of the moon and NOT the weight that determines the magnitude of the thump? The formula is "Energy = 1/2 MASS x Velocity-squared." Let it sink into your head.
For good measure, another "lost your marbles" quote, "No no MH,it is a 21.45 kg mass hitting the ground."
MH-you have finally flipped your lid.
Equal and opposite forces MH. You cannot get more out than you put in.
Fact-less energy is required to lift the same mass to the same height than is required here on earth.
Fact-less energy is returned upon impact on the moon,than it is here on earth.
Fact-the reason for this is,although the mass remains the same,the weight dose not
Fact- The mass equivalent in KG's on the moon is 21.45
!NASA! fact--the hammer and feather fall at the same speed,but the hammer will impact the ground with more energy-Why?--the feather is lighter.
Fact-dropped from the same height,the hammer will impact the ground with more force than it will dropped from the same height on the moon.
You have completely lost the plot if you think that the weight changes nothing,regardless of what the mass is. Not only that,but your earth quake theory is utter rubbish-provable beyond any doubt here on earth where greater impacts are made--due to the greater weight ;)
After i have put PW's theory in the bin,i suspect you will return to your earth quake theory ::)
-
Tinman,
That is an optical property of thin films. Think soap bubbles and oil films on water...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin-film_interference
PW
This explanation dose not fit the picture supplied. The photographs i supplied from the apollo mission show clear and decisive edges of each different color on each piece of tape. The examples you supplied by way of the link you posted show merging colors with undefined blurring transitions.
Below -the first picture shows the effect you are talking of,and the second picture shows the defined color differences between each piece of tape.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNWs-vlIhdM
;)
Nice this guy did the timing for each event comparing known earth (3 seconds for 10 drops), feather hammer(11 seconds for 10 drops) and the accidental rock drop (4 seconds for 10 drops) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46dW5rzhtMI
-
MH-you have finally flipped your lid.
Equal and opposite forces MH. You cannot get more out than you put in.
Fact-less energy is required to lift the same mass to the same height than is required here on earth.
Fact-less energy is returned upon impact on the moon,than it is here on earth.
Fact-the reason for this is,although the mass remains the same,the weight dose not
Fact- The mass equivalent in KG's on the moon is 21.45
!NASA! fact--the hammer and feather fall at the same speed,but the hammer will impact the ground with more energy-Why?--the feather is lighter.
Fact-dropped from the same height,the hammer will impact the ground with more force than it will dropped from the same height on the moon.
You have completely lost the plot if you think that the weight changes nothing,regardless of what the mass is. Not only that,but your earth quake theory is utter rubbish-provable beyond any doubt here on earth where greater impacts are made--due to the greater weight ;)
After i have put PW's theory in the bin,i suspect you will return to your earth quake theory ::)
Let me translate this for you Brad into something more coherent.
You are basically stating that the final velocity will be less because you are on the moon. I already told you that I don't care about the final velocity.
A quote from you, "The mass equivalent in KG's on the moon is 21.45."
Let me translate that for you, "The weight equivalent in KG's on the moon is 21.45."
Can you understand how you have an issue?
The earth quake theory is not "utter rubbish." If you drop a mass of one kilogram onto the surface of the moon from a height of one meter, where does that energy go?
-
I watched the video. I believe the flag moved due to being hit by the exhaust from the spacesuit sublimator.
In the video, if you can stand listening to the sound track, you will hear NASA say "coming up on water". The astronauts are being told there EVA must come to an end because the portable life support system (PLSS) is running out of water.
The PLSS used a rebreather and CO2 scrubber. Oxygen, as a consumable, was rarely the limiting factor regarding EVA time. However, the suits used a "sublimator" for cooling which consumed water and it was that water which was typically the EVA limiting consumable.
Somewhat simplified, the sublimator forces water thru very tiny pores on the inside of a cylindrical metal plate. The water freezes. Warm water from the suits garment layer needing to be cooled is run thru tubes in contact with the plate. This "melts" and "boils off" (actually, "sublimates") the water (which does so at a lower temp in a vacuum). A fan is used to purge (blow out) the water vapor from the inside of the cylindrical sublimator.
If I recall correctly, the exhaust for the sublimator is thru a relatively large circular opening in the left side of the PLSS hard shell.
PW
Here are the two reasons it can not be the ejected water from the sublimator unit.
First-in the video,we see the astronaut bouncing past the flag. We clearly see the flag waver as he just passes the flag. If it was the ejected water(now turned into extremely small ice particles due to the rapid expansion of the water mist entering an extreme vacuum hitting the flag,then the flags first motion would be away from the astronaut. As can be clearly seen in the video,the first motion of the flag is toward the astronaut. This reaction is exactly as it would be here on earth.
Second- The pump and fan you speak of is between the middle and left side of the back pack unit. The sublimator units cooling plates run across the top of the PLSS unit. The waste vent is on the right hand side of the unit. On the left side of the PLSS unit,there was provision for an extra bag/luggage storage sack. The first two pictures below show the left side of the PLSS pack,and as can be seen in the first picture,there is no waste vent on the left side. The second picture show the extra luggage sack fitted that would cover any vent. The third picture shows the vent on the right side of the PLSS unit. So this also means that it was no ejected water from the pack that makes the flag waver,as it is on the wrong side.
Brad
-
Brad:
Here is a little bonus round that will throw a monkey wrench into the experiment that was locked up inside your head this whole time.
Suppose you are on the Earth and you do a straight jump up from a standing position. Let's say you put a moderate amount of effort into it and you jump up six inches and then land.
Now, just imagine everything stays the same but the gravity is decreased to the moon's gravity. This is just a thought experiment.
You jump up with the same amount of effort. Naturally you will jump up much higher and you have more air time.
So what about the landings in both cases?
The answer is that in both cases you will land with the same speed and therefore you will experience the same force and the energy will be the same.
Now, going back to the moon, we see an astronaut jumping past the flag. He is hitting the ground with the same amount of force if you imagine him doing the same thing on Earth.
In both cases, the landing back down to the ground is just as hard as the amount of effort you put into making the jump up in the first place. Except on the moon you have more air time.
The moral of the story is that the jumping astronaut will hit the moon just as hard as if he was jumping on the Earth.
-
I simply said that an astronaut and his space suit hitting the surface of the moon could create a localized tremor in the surface material and that could make the flag move.
A large thump from an astronaut in a space suit on the moon can cause a lot of problems
https://youtu.be/kFAZoVGxqY4?t=108
-
A large thump from an astronaut in a space suit on the moon can cause a lot of problems
https://youtu.be/kFAZoVGxqY4?t=108 (https://youtu.be/kFAZoVGxqY4?t=108)
Yes, the moon conspiracy theorists take simulation footage and dress rehearsal footage and use that as "evidence."
-
Sublimation is the transition of a substance directly from the solid to the gas phase without passing through the intermediate liquid phase. Sublimation is an endothermic phase transition that occurs at temperatures and pressures below a substance's triple point in its phase diagram.
-
Let me translate this for you Brad into something more coherent.
You are basically stating that the final velocity will be less because you are on the moon. I already told you that I don't care about the final velocity.
A quote from you, "The mass equivalent in KG's on the moon is 21.45."
Let me translate that for you, "The weight equivalent in KG's on the moon is 21.45."
Can you understand how you have an issue?
Dear MH
Here on earth we calculate mass using KG's.
As i said-the mass equivalent in KG's on the moon is 21.45--what part of that do you not understand?. If something weighs 21.45 kg's on the moon,it ruddy mass here on earth will be 130kg's. Is it really that hard for you to understand MH.
The earth quake theory is not "utter rubbish." If you drop a mass of one kilogram onto the surface of the moon from a height of one meter, where does that energy go?
It is dissipated into the moon.
Your earth quake theory is rubbish--the proof is in the video MH--it staring you right in the face ;)
Did you see any of these earth quake vibrations that were strong enough to make a flag wave,also create even the slightest vibration on the camera that the astronaut was holding ?--didnt think so.
While your at it,work this one out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNWs-vlIhdM
-
Brad:
Here is a little bonus round that will throw a monkey wrench into the experiment that was locked up inside your head this whole time.
Suppose you are on the Earth and you do a straight jump up from a standing position. Let's say you put a moderate amount of effort into it and you jump up six inches and then land.
Now, just imagine everything stays the same but the gravity is decreased to the moon's gravity. This is just a thought experiment.
You jump up with the same amount of effort. Naturally you will jump up much higher and you have more air time.
So what about the landings in both cases?
The answer is that in both cases you will land with the same speed and therefore you will experience the same force and the energy will be the same.
Now, going back to the moon, we see an astronaut jumping past the flag. He is hitting the ground with the same amount of force if you imagine him doing the same thing on Earth.
In both cases, the landing back down to the ground is just as hard as the amount of effort you put into making the jump up in the first place. Except on the moon you have more air time.
The moral of the story is that the jumping astronaut will hit the moon just as hard as if he was jumping on the Earth.
Bull shit MH.
Do the astronauts look like there jumping any higher than they would on earth?.
The fact is MH,if you drop a ball that weighs 1kg here on earth from a height of 1 meter,the impact energy will be far greater than if you dropped that same ball from the same height on the moon--thats a fact MH that you cant seem to comprehend. The energy needed to lift that ball one meter here on earth is 6.5 time greater than on the moon. The energy of the impact here on earth when that ball hits the ground is then 6.5 times greater than on the moon-minus air resistive losses here on earth.
While your at it,explain as to why the astronauts and lunar vehicles motions are in slow motion-or appear to be. For what reason do they rise so slowly when they bounce around?
If i weighed say 100kg's,and i then lost say 70kg's .Would i appear to move in slow motion,or would my motion now appear faster with the weight loss.
-
As i said-the mass equivalent in KG's on the moon is 21.45--what part of that do you not understand?. If something weighs 21.45 kg's on the moon,it ruddy mass here on earth will be 130kg's. Is it really that hard for you to understand MH.
I can see that it's pretty much hopeless. Did you read where I stated that equivalent kilograms weight is never used and frowned upon? Your brain can't process the fact that you were supposed to use the term "weight" instead of "mass" in your sentence?
It is dissipated into the moon.
Yes, and the flag is planted in that moon. But I suppose you have a bionic eye like the six million dollar man and it calculated exactly how much energy impacted onto the flag pole and you are "sure" that your bionic eye is right when it said that the flag should not shake.... You have superpowers.
Did you see any of these earth quake vibrations that were strong enough to make a flag wave,also create even the slightest vibration on the camera that the astronaut was holding ?--didnt think so.
The above is a ridiculous comparison that is completely invalid and makes no sense. It's just another item to add to that list that I posted of crazy things that you said.
While your at it,work this one out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNWs-vlIhdM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNWs-vlIhdM)
There is nothing to work out.
-
PW
This explanation dose not fit the picture supplied. The photographs i supplied from the apollo mission show clear and decisive edges of each different color on each piece of tape. The examples you supplied by way of the link you posted show merging colors with undefined blurring transitions.
Below -the first picture shows the effect you are talking of,and the second picture shows the defined color differences between each piece of tape.
Point 1: Consider the angles involved.
Point 2: Consider the light source
-
Bull shit MH.
Do the astronauts look like there jumping any higher than they would on earth?.
The fact is MH,if you drop a ball that weighs 1kg here on earth from a height of 1 meter,the impact energy will be far greater than if you dropped that same ball from the same height on the moon--thats a fact MH that you cant seem to comprehend. The energy needed to lift that ball one meter here on earth is 6.5 time greater than on the moon. The energy of the impact here on earth when that ball hits the ground is then 6.5 times greater than on the moon-minus air resistive losses here on earth.
While your at it,explain as to why the astronauts and lunar vehicles motions are in slow motion-or appear to be. For what reason do they rise so slowly when they bounce around?
If i weighed say 100kg's,and i then lost say 70kg's .Would i appear to move in slow motion,or would my motion now appear faster with the weight loss.
I comprehend the ball dropping perfectly as I already indicated. The problem is that it does not apply to my original statement. The astronaut landed with a thud and that may have caused the flag to wave.
My thought experiment is 100% true and valid so if you are calling BS on it then you don't understand basic physics.
I think the astronauts move slowly because they are inside a pressurized suit that has an associated stiffness to it and they are carrying around a life support system that has a significant mass.
-
I comprehend the ball dropping perfectly as I already indicated. The problem is that it does not apply to my original statement. The astronaut landed with a thud and that may have caused the flag to wave.
My thought experiment is 100% true and valid so if you are calling BS on it then you don't understand basic physics.
I think the astronauts move slowly because they are inside a pressurized suit that has an associated stiffness to it and they are carrying around a life support system that has a significant mass.
My thought experiment is 100% true and valid so if you are calling BS on it then you don't understand basic physics.
Your thought experiment has nothing to do with your over stated weight of the astronaut and suit on the moon. My understanding of physics is fine thank you,and i have made no errors in what i have said.
Please be more precise and correct from now on,when you are explaining/referring to events on the moon. Mixing it up with factors that exist here on earth,is only a misdirection on your behalf.
Brad
-
Here are the two reasons it can not be the ejected water from the sublimator unit.
First-in the video,we see the astronaut bouncing past the flag. We clearly see the flag waver as he just passes the flag. If it was the ejected water(now turned into extremely small ice particles due to the rapid expansion of the water mist entering an extreme vacuum hitting the flag,then the flags first motion would be away from the astronaut. As can be clearly seen in the video,the first motion of the flag is toward the astronaut. This reaction is exactly as it would be here on earth.
Second- The pump and fan you speak of is between the middle and left side of the back pack unit. The sublimator units cooling plates run across the top of the PLSS unit. The waste vent is on the right hand side of the unit. On the left side of the PLSS unit,there was provision for an extra bag/luggage storage sack. The first two pictures below show the left side of the PLSS pack,and as can be seen in the first picture,there is no waste vent on the left side. The second picture show the extra luggage sack fitted that would cover any vent. The third picture shows the vent on the right side of the PLSS unit. So this also means that it was no ejected water from the pack that makes the flag waver,as it is on the wrong side.
Brad
Tinman.
The ejected stream is not ice particles. The water ice sublimes into a gas. Think a flow of water molecules.
The info I provided was from recollection with discussions I had with an engineer that worked at Huntsville during Apollo. I was curious as to how heat was dealt with in a vacuum and we spent a great deal of time looking at a photo album and discussing Apollo. Those conversations were some 45 years ago or so. I recall there being an opening on the left side of the hard shell for the exhaust, but at my age, it would not be the first time my recollection was in error. I also recall the O2 bottles being at the very top of the unit.
That said, I admit to being totally unfamiliar with the outer soft shell. Even so, I find it very hard to believe the area you point out is the exhaust for the sublimator. That looks too small and more so like the end of a strap.
The fan in the sublimator unit acts more like a turbomolecular pump than like a fan here on Earth. Molecules are accelerated by impact with the rotating and angled blades.
As time allows, I will try to find out more about the PLSS, particularly with regard to the soft shell lay out.
Do you have a link that indicates the area you outlined is the vent?
PW
-
Your thought experiment has nothing to do with your over stated weight of the astronaut and suit on the moon.
One last time, I am fully aware that the gravity is weaker and the astronaut weighs less on the moon. The issue is that when his feet land on the surface of the moon and make an impact resulting in a certain amount of energy that is transmitted into the lunar soil, it's his mass and his velocity that count, not his weight and velocity.
If you can't understand that, then it's hopeless.
PW stated what sublimation is and in your explanation with the "ice crystals" you seemingly ignored what he said or it all just passed right though you like you weren't even there.
-
....
-
I was doing some work on my bench when I realized I had a bag of small white nylon spacers laying next to me that I had purchased at the local hardware store for a recent build.
I also have a temp controlled heat gun, so just for grins I mounted the .375"OD X .170"ID X .125" thick bushing in a self closing tweezer, set the heat gun to 400F and heated the bushing for some time. During and after heating no deformation was noted and squeezing along the diameter of the hot bushing with a needle nose pliers indicated that the bushing was only slightly soft but it immediately sprung back to being round as soon as I released the pressure.
To verify the temp, I then mounted a thermocouple between the bushing and tips of tweezer and again heated the bushing. I took the bushing/thermocouple to 208C/407F and again tried squeezing the bushing with the pliers. As before, it only appeared a bit soft and sprung back into shape as soon as the pressure was released.
I have no idea what type of nylon this bushing is made from, but it took the heat very well.
Back to work...
PW
-
If you can't understand that, then it's hopeless.
PW stated what sublimation is and in your explanation with the "ice crystals" you seemingly ignored what he said or it all just passed right though you like you weren't even there.
One last time, I am fully aware that the gravity is weaker and the astronaut weighs less on the moon. The issue is that when his feet land on the surface of the moon and make an impact resulting in a certain amount of energy that is transmitted into the lunar soil, it's his mass and his velocity that count, not his weight and velocity.
One last time MH,if you are well aware that his weight is less than what you stated(by over 600%),then you should also be aware that that same mass is going to have an impact that is 600% less than what you tried to present. The fact is(and you can argue all you like)that a mass that weighs 21.45kg's on the moon,is going to dissipate 600% less impact energy than a mass that weighs 130 kg's on the moon,when hitting the moon surface from the same height. As we were discussing the wavering flag on the !!moon!!,then it is clear that when you quoted your weights(more than once),you were clearly trying to increase your chances at making your ridiculous claim believable by others reading this thread. Do what you tell everyone else here to do when presenting an argument of support,or data to present your theory.
Now--you have made a claim. You now have to do what you insist we all do--carry out an experiment that supports your claim. When you have done this,i will carry out an experiment that supports my claim. When we are done,we can see who's theory is correct-->are you up for the challenge MH ? I will even allow you to use your weight of 130kg's to get your flag to wave. All you have to do is place a clear panel between the flag and the weight being dropped at around 2 feet away from the flag--it is that simple--an old glass sliding door as the divider would do just fine. You may choose any surface soil you like-soft,hard,it dose not matter.
I will then carry out my experiment,and see how my theory pans out-->are you up to the challenge MH ?. Im happy if you can not do the experiment,to get some one else to carry it out for you.
What do you say MH--shall we see if your earth quake man theory is correct?.
Brad.
P.S
Then we can try and explain as to why the hammer and feather in the hammer and feather test,fall much slower than that item did that fell out of the astronaut's PLSS unit.
Then after we have solved that,we can then move on to as why the lunar rovers(and every other motion) seem to be in slow motion,when our wonderful laws of physics say that this is impossible when the force of gravity is much less,and the fact that there is also no atmospheric resistance.
-
Tinman.
The ejected stream is not ice particles. The water ice sublimes into a gas. Think a flow of water molecules.
The info I provided was from recollection with discussions I had with an engineer that worked at Huntsville during Apollo. I was curious as to how heat was dealt with in a vacuum and we spent a great deal of time looking at a photo album and discussing Apollo. Those conversations were some 45 years ago or so. I recall there being an opening on the left side of the hard shell for the exhaust, but at my age, it would not be the first time my recollection was in error. I also recall the O2 bottles being at the very top of the unit.
That said, I admit to being totally unfamiliar with the outer soft shell. Even so, I find it very hard to believe the area you point out is the exhaust for the sublimator. That looks too small and more so like the end of a strap.
The fan in the sublimator unit acts more like a turbomolecular pump than like a fan here on Earth. Molecules are accelerated by impact with the rotating and angled blades.
As time allows, I will try to find out more about the PLSS, particularly with regard to the soft shell lay out.
Do you have a link that indicates the area you outlined is the vent?
PW
I have found many detailed drawings of the PLSS unit,but not one indicates as to where the exaust vent is. The only way i could then use to work out where the vent was,was to look at several HD expanded picture,and try and find the vent visually. The one i have circled is the only outlet i could find,and all the pictures show the left side of the PLSS unit to be totally covered in the outer soft layer and additional carry pack. There is also the fact that the flags first motion is toward the astronaut. If ejected gas was hitting the flag,causing it to move,then it's first motion should be away from the astronaut.
Brad.
-
Then after we have solved that,we can then move on to as why the lunar rovers(and every other motion) seem to be in slow motion,when our wonderful laws of physics say that this is impossible when the force of gravity is much less,and the fact that there is also no atmospheric resistance.
Due to much less gravity you would probably want to move slow, or inertia may take you farther than intended. :o ;D
Mags
-
Lol Moon Sports! How high could the basket be for a slam dunk on the moon? ;D
Mags
-
This is what MH stated
One last time, I am fully aware that the gravity is weaker and the astronaut weighs less on the moon. The issue is that when his feet land on the surface of the moon and make an impact resulting in a certain amount of energy that is transmitted into the lunar soil, it's his mass and his velocity that count, not his weight and velocity. !
That's the correct answer and conforms a man on the moon !
Any one who thinks its all a load of rubbish needs there head opened up and a new brain installed ASAP ............... !
Only a complete idiot would now question man on the moon reality ....................................................................!
FACT .....
-
One last time MH,if you are well aware that his weight is less than what you stated(by over 600%),then you should also be aware that that same mass is going to have an impact that is 600% less than what you tried to present. The fact is(and you can argue all you like)that a mass that weighs 21.45kg's on the moon,is going to dissipate 600% less impact energy than a mass that weighs 130 kg's on the moon..
The impact energy is related to mass, not weight. If you can't comprehend the difference then do us a favour and learn the difference before making such ridiculous assertions.
-
One last time MH,if you are well aware that his weight is less than what you stated(by over 600%),then you should also be aware that that same mass is going to have an impact that is 600% less than what you tried to present. The fact is(and you can argue all you like)that a mass that weighs 21.45kg's on the moon,is going to dissipate 600% less impact energy than a mass that weighs 130 kg's on the moon,when hitting the moon surface from the same height. As we were discussing the wavering flag on the !!moon!!,then it is clear that when you quoted your weights(more than once),you were clearly trying to increase your chances at making your ridiculous claim believable by others reading this thread. Do what you tell everyone else here to do when presenting an argument of support,or data to present your theory.
The problem is that you are taking my statement and re-spinning it so that it fits inside your head and works the way you want it to work and that is not going to fly because I described the situation and not you. I made the statement. I never said anything at all about "hitting the moon's surface from the same height."
I will say it to you again to see if it sinks in. I simply stated that when the astronaut hits the moon's surface it could create a tremor that makes the flag shake. I did not talk about dropping from a certain height. I did not even mention the final velocity.
You have to look at the situation from the way I am describing it and not the way you want to describe it.
There is no comparison taking place between Earth's gravity and the moon's gravity.
When the astronaut and his space suit hits the surface of the Earth, or if he hits the surface of the moon, the energy dissipated in the impact is a function of the mass and the final velocity, and you can ignore the strength of the gravitational field. For sure in the moon's gravity the final velocity will be less, but that's not the point.
What's the formula for the energy in the impact? It's energy equals one-half of the mass times the square of the velocity.
You notice that there is no gravitational acceleration in the formula for the energy in the impact.
You notice that they use mass in the formula and not weight.
Now if you can understand all that then fine. But if you are going to go back and say, "But the astronaut and space suit are one-sixth the weight and if we drop them from the same height, bla bla bla," then you are not understanding what I am saying to you and you are only capable of taking my example and "plugging it into your brain" the only way it is going to fit.
If the only way that my example is going to fit into your head is by modifying my example and answering in the only way you are capable of answering it then you have some real limitations. You are also failing to realize that you don't have the slightest clue if the astronaut's impact will make the flag shake or not. It's the same thing where you fail to realize that it would be impossible from just a photograph to know if you are looking at a flag made out of nylon or cotton or rayon. Yet you claim that you can which is ridiculous.
Ultimately this is a debate about nothing because we are not disagreeing with each other, we are simply talking about different things. Nonetheless, if you can't agree that a statement that says, "the energy of the impact an astronaut will make on the moon's surface is a function of his mass and his velocity" is true, then you have some serious problems.
-
There is also the fact that the flags first motion is toward the astronaut. If ejected gas was hitting the flag,causing it to move,then it's first motion should be away from the astronaut.
Wouldn't that also be true if filmed on Earth with an atmosphere ?
The moving air would push the flag away first ?
So the logical conclusion is that it was neither filmed in an atmosphere or in a vacuum :(
But what ?
-
The impact energy is related to mass, not weight. If you can't comprehend the difference then do us a favour and learn the difference before making such ridiculous assertions.
Obviously you (like MH) cannot grasp the fact that the acceleration of G is far less on the moon,nor have you bothered to go back and read what we are talking about.
So perhaps you go do some learning first,before trying to make your self look good-which you failed at this time.
Brad
-
Due to much less gravity you would probably want to move slow, or inertia may take you farther than intended. :o ;D
Mags
Exactly Mags
Now go watch the lunar rover in action,and tell me what you see wrong there?.
Brad
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=16359.msg472492#msg472492 date=1453941818
"
The problem is that you are taking my statement and re-spinning it so that it fits inside your head and works the way you want it to work and that is not going to fly because I described the situation and not you. I made the statement. I never said anything at all about "hitting the moon's surface from the same height.
Whats not going to fly MH,is your incorrect calculated weights--which make a very big difference.
Once again,the weight of the astronaut and his suit is NOT 130kg's on the moon-and we are talking about what kind of impact the astronaut will have on the moons surface in order to cause the flag to waver. If you cannot put forth the correct weights when making up some sort of theory as to why the flag wavers on the MOON,then do not place your theory on this thread,as it is flawed right from the start, due to incorrect weights being stated. On earth we calculate mass in way of KG's.
So once again,the astronaut and his suit do not weigh 130KG's on the moon-they weigh 21.45KG's.
I dont give two squirts of duck sh-t if the mass is the same on earth as it is on the moon,the fact remains that the astronaut and his suit has a combined weight of 21.45KG's-not 130KG's. So the impact the astronaut and his suit has on the moon will be far less when the correct weight is used,rather than your incorrect weight of 130KG's is used. Like i said,you tried to slip this through to make your idiotic theory sound more plausible-but i caught you out.
Post correct data-or post non at all. I will not have you (once again) turn this thread into some sort of bullshit dribble thread,just because you have a bias view on the moon landings. In any other thread,you would be the one calling bullshit data,and yet here you are posting it your self.
I will say it to you again to see if it sinks in. I simply stated that when the astronaut hits the moon's surface it could create a tremor that makes the flag shake. I did not talk about dropping from a certain height. I did not even mention the final velocity.
What you did(once again) is post incorrect mass weights-in excess of over 600% of the actual mass weights.
[quote]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.[/quote]
Right there highlighted in red.
A blatant misconception clearly inferring that the impact was going to be from a mass with a weight of 290lb's,when the actual truth is the impact will be from a mass with a weight of only 47.85lb's. So the impact energy (when the correct mass weight is used) will be far less than the one you tried to use.
You have to look at the situation from the way I am describing it and not the way you want to describe it.
How do you ever think i would do that,when the way you have described it is totally wrong.
The way i want you to describe it is with correct value's--not the incorrect values you tried to sneak in there.
There is no comparison taking place between Earth's gravity and the moon's gravity.
Yes there is--by you MH.
You decided to use the mass weight of the astronaut and his suit here on earth to put forth a theory of something that you thought may be happening on the moon-->and that is just bull shit- period.
When the astronaut and his space suit hits the surface of the Earth, or if he hits the surface of the moon, the energy dissipated in the impact is a function of the mass and the final velocity, and you can ignore the strength of the gravitational field. For sure in the moon's gravity the final velocity will be less, but that's not the point.
No-the point is the impact energy is determined by the !!correct!! mass weight on the moon,and the gravitational acceleration--1.62519 m/s2.
So MH,which will deliver the greatest impact energy when impacting the moon surface-something that weighs 130KG's on the moon,or something that weight 21.45KG's on the moon.
What's the formula for the energy in the impact? It's energy equals one-half of the mass times the square of the velocity.
You notice that there is no gravitational acceleration in the formula for the energy in the impact.
You notice that they use mass in the formula and not weight.
The formula for GPE is M x G x H, Where as the GPE is converted to kinetic energy,and then to the displaced energy upon impact.
What is the angular velocity of your space man MH?
If the only way that my example is going to fit into your head is by modifying my example and answering in the only way you are capable of answering it then you have some real limitations. You are also failing to realize that you don't have the slightest clue if the astronaut's impact will make the flag shake or not.
The only way your example is going to be true,is if you use the value of the moons gravitational force(and not earths) when making up theories of events that are taking place on the moon.
Now it is up to you to prove that your moon quake theory is sound--and i can tell you right now,it is not--so prove me wrong. Show me just one example that exist on the WWW to prove your theory-as you would ask of us-and do all the time.
It's the same thing where you fail to realize that it would be impossible from just a photograph to know if you are looking at a flag made out of nylon or cotton or rayon. Yet you claim that you can which is ridiculous.
And yet,i got it right.
Like i said,if you cant tell what the nylon material looks like that !off the shelf! flags are made from by looking at a close up of a very clear picture,then you need glasses. Dose it not make sense to you that you have a pretty good chance at getting it right by looking at a picture of a material that you have seen many times before,and know that almost all !off the shelf! flags are made of that material.
Ultimately this is a debate about nothing because we are not disagreeing with each other, we are simply talking about different things. Nonetheless, if you can't agree that a statement that says, "the energy of the impact an astronaut will make on the moon's surface is a function of his mass and his velocity" is true, then you have some serious problems.
No MH. The impact energy from something that weighs 21.45kg's on the moon is going to be far less than something that weights 130kg's on the moon ,when in reference to the same motion of the astronaut and suit--and thats a fact. If you are going to disagree with that,then you need to go back to school.
The hammer and feather is thrown at the same velocity at the same 45* angle. They impact the moons surface at the same time--which is going to impart the greatest amount of energy when they hit the moons surface?.
Brad
-
Obviously you (like MH) cannot grasp the fact that the acceleration of G is far less on the moon,nor have you bothered to go back and read what we are talking about.
So perhaps you go do some learning first,before trying to make your self look good-which you failed at this time.
Brad
Consider the folowing two scenarios.
1. An astronaut stands on a one metre high platform on the earth and jumps off. He does the same from a one metre high platform on the moon. He hits the moon with less energy than he does on the earth.
2. He stands on the earth and jumps into the air. He does the same on the moon using the same amount of effort for the jump. In this situation , whenhe comes back down the energy that he impacts both the moon and earth is exactly the same.
I think youll find I understand the dynamics of this perectly well.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/ks3/science/energy_electricity_forces/forces/revision/3/
-
Consider the folowing two scenarios.
1. An astronaut stands on a one metre high platform on the earth and jumps off. He does the same from a one metre high platform on the moon. He hits the moon with less energy than he does on the earth.
2. He stands on the earth and jumps into the air. He does the same on the moon using the same amount of effort for the jump. In this situation , whenhe comes back down the energy that he impacts both the moon and earth is exactly the same.
I think youll find I understand the dynamics of this perectly well.
I think you will find that you have not read the situation that myself and MH are talking about.
So before making comments,perhaps spend some time reading the thread first,as what you just described has nothing to do with what we are talking about--that being the difference of an astronauts weight and impact he has on the moon--nothing to do with earth at all.
Brad
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/ks3/science/energy_electricity_forces/forces/revision/3/
Thank you hoppy.
Now maybe MH will understand as to how more weight equates to more newtons of force,and thus more impact energy when the astronaut lands,where as mass has nothing to do with it in this case,as mass is the same everywhere.
Brad
-
Thank you hoppy.
Now maybe MH will understand as to how more weight equates to more newtons of force,and thus more impact energy when the astronaut lands,where as mass has nothing to do with it in this case,as mass is the same everywhere.
Brad
In fact Hoppy was trying to show you something to support what I have been saying to you. He was finding you an example on the web just like you asked for.
Suppose that you are an astronaut in training on Earth, and you fall and hit the ground at 2 meters per second.
Suppose that you are an astronaut on the moon and you fall and hit the surface of the moon at 2 meters per second.
Suppose that you are an astronaut and are weightless out on a space walk servicing the International Space Station and something happens you hit the side of the station at 2 meters per second.
In all three cases the impact energy will be the same. It's not about weight, it's about mass.
-
So once again,the astronaut and his suit do not weigh 130KG's on the moon-they weigh 21.45KG's.
I will just tell you one more time that you never say "kilograms of weight." That is cringe worthy. Ignore it if you want but be aware that it makes people cringe.
-
I think you will find that you have not read the situation that myself and MH are talking about.
So before making comments,perhaps spend some time reading the thread first,as what you just described has nothing to do with what we are talking about--that being the difference of an astronauts weight and impact he has on the moon--nothing to do with earth at all.
Brad
Ive read and understood it perfectly well. The fact that you cant understand why what ive described is related to the situation you describe is evidence for your complete ingnorance of basic physics.
-
Ive read and understood it perfectly well. The fact that you cant understand why what ive described is related to the situation you describe is evidence for your complete ingnorance of basic physics.
Are you sure your not MH in desguise?,as you seem to be just as confused as he is.
What astronaut will make an impact on the moons surface that is greatest while, bouncing along in the same way as they do in the video's
1-an astronaut that weights 130KG's on the moon
2-an astronaut that weighs 21.45KG's on the moon
Lets see if you pass basic physics ;)
-
Are you sure your not MH in desguise?,as you seem to be just as confused as he is.
What astronaut will make an impact on the moons surface that is greatest while, bouncing along in the same way as they do in the video's
1-an astronaut that weights 130KG's on the moon
2-an astronaut that weighs 21.45KG's on the moon
Lets see if you pass basic physics ;)
Firstly, a kg is a unit of mass, not a weight, so obviously a mass of 130 kg will have more impact compared with a 21.45 kg one. However, if an astronaut with a mass of 130 kg on earth were to go to the moon he would weigh 6 times less. Were he to jump up and down on a spot he would have have exactly the same impact on earth as he does on the moon, assuming he used the same amount of energy for each jump. The thing that would change is he would jump higher on the moon.
-
Firstly, a kg is a unit of mass, not a weight, so obviously a mass of 130 kg will have more impact compared with a 21.45 kg one. However, if an astronaut with a mass of 130 kg on earth were to go to the moon he would weigh 6 times less. Were he to jump up and down on a spot he would have have exactly the same impact on earth as he does on the moon, assuming he used the same amount of energy for each jump. The thing that would change is he would jump higher on the moon.
Only he dose not jump higher on the moon,as can be clearly seen in the video in question,and as we are dealing with the astronauts motion on the moon(with no relativity as to what he dose on earth),then we use his weight as it is on the moon.
Quote MH
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.
So as you can see,it was MH that chose to use weight in stead of mass to describe his ground shaking theory--not me. So i corrected him on his mistake,and converted his incorrect !!weights!! to the correct weight the astronaut and his suit would weigh.
The correct paragraph would read--
Because the 28.05-pound astronaut and the 19.8-pound space suit form a 47.85-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
So,can you now see,when the astronauts motion is the same in both cases,as to how MH's incorrect weight makes a huge difference in supporting his theory as to how the astronauts would cause the ground to shake,and the flag to waver,while bouncing on past. So now MH's small portion of the impact energy that makes the flag !rattle! is now 600% smaller.
Brad
-
So as you can see,it was MH that chose to use weight in stead of mass to describe his ground shaking theory--not me.
I doesn't make sense that you can pull up quotes from all over the thread and miss what I said:
<<< I was quoting the weights of the astronaut and the suit in a purely colloquial sense. You ran with that and took it to it's absurd literal end and used the moon's gravitational acceleration - as if that had anything to do with it - which it doesn't. What's the "m" in f = ma? >>>
Definition: Colloquial language, colloquial dialect, or informal language is a variety of language commonly employed in conversation or other communication in informal situations.
<<< I intentionally switched from pounds to kilograms because pounds is a wishy-washy English unit that can mean weight or mass, whereas kilograms is universally understood to mean MASS ONLY. Clearly you were not aware of that, as in, "The combined weight is 21.45kg's(now that you have gone metric)." >>>
I have probably told you about 20 times in the thread so far that it is the mass that counts and not the weight. Just a few posts earlier I said it again:
<<< In all three cases the impact energy will be the same. It's not about weight, it's about mass. >>>
I have seen you pull this silly "selective memory" stunt before.
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=16359.msg472551#msg472551 date=1453988866
I doesn't make sense that you can pull up quotes from all over the thread and miss what I said:
I did not just pull up quotes from all over the thread. This was your first quote you used to try and explain as to why the flag wavered as the astronaut bounced on past it. As we are trying to explain anomalies of something very important,then you should be using exact values when trying to explain the anomalies-not just examples that are 600% out.
I was quoting the weights of the astronaut and the suit in a purely colloquial sense. You ran with that and took it to it's absurd literal end and used the moon's gravitational acceleration - as if that had anything to do with it - which it doesn't.
Which it dose.
<<< What's the "m" in f = ma? >>>
F=MA is a generic expression of Newton's Second Law,and can be transformed to express weight as a force by replacing the acceleration A with the acceleration of gravity G.
W=MG
Where W is weight or gravitational force
M=Mass (KG)
And G is the acceleration of gravity.
<<< I intentionally switched from pounds to kilograms because pounds is a wishy-washy English unit that can mean weight or mass, whereas kilograms is universally understood to mean MASS ONLY. Clearly you were not aware of that, as in, "The combined weight is 21.45kg's(now that you have gone metric)." >>>I have probably told you about 20 times in the thread so far that it is the mass that counts and not the weight. Just a few posts earlier I said it again:
If you use the correct formula MH,then the weight matters a great deal.
On the moon it is-->(1 kg) (9.81 m/s2) / 6= 1.64N,--> And on earth it is (1 kg) (9.81 m/s2)= 9.81N
Are you seeing where you incorrect weights will make a huge difference now MH?.
1.61 Newtons of force as apposed to your 9.81 Newtons of force.
9.81/1.61x100=609.31. So once again,you are over 600% out with your force.
<<< In all three cases the impact energy will be the same. It's not about weight, it's about mass. >>>
Um-no, The impact energy will not be the same. Your calculations produce an impact energy that is over 600% more than it would be when the correct weight is used-as explained above.
I have seen you pull this silly "selective memory" stunt before.
What we !all! have just seen,is your attempt at tipping the scales in favor of your silly earth quake producing astronaut ,that impacts the moons surface with enough energy to cause the flag to waver. This sad attempt at misdirection and cause,just go's to show how stupid or naive some one can be,when it come's to something they must believe in,and will maintain that belief at any cost.
As i said at the start of this thread MH-->you simply do not belong here,due to your bias toward the moon landings. As we have all just seen,it removes you from the scientific view,and all your scientific method's go out the window.
Brad.
-
Well, you belong in a Physics 101 class because you are dead wrong and it's futile because you are determined to resist what I am saying to you.
One of the great weaknesses of this forum is the abject fear and/or messed up peer pressure to not correct a mistake being made by one of your friends. Only LibreEnergia has the "guts" to tell you that you are wrong.
This seriousness weakness in this forum means that people can get away with saying the most ridiculous stuff or simply make flat-out wrong statements and almost nobody will correct them. It's ridiculous and totally counter-productive.
So right now you are a victim of the very serious flaw in this forum because your friends are reading you making a crazy mistake - like you are lacking in basic physics common sense - and they are saying nothing and it all just becomes a spectacle.
I wish some other people would step up to the plate and post here telling Brad that he is dead wrong. Only if that happens will you then come out of your trance, wake up, and do some research and undertake to educate yourself and learn what you need to learn. And then if you have any guts you will come back and make a posting acknowledging that you were wrong the whole time.
-
With respect to the flag pole planted in the moon's crust, there is a distinct possibility that when a sound wave traveling through the crust hits it from the astronaut's impact something interesting happens.
It's possible that the low-frequency sound wave from the "thump" is close enough to a resonant frequency mode of the flag pole system - the vertical flag pole, the horizontal pole holding up the flag, and the flag itself. A small amount of energy in the sound wave travels up the vertical flag pole and then into the horizontal pole holding up the flag, and then the energy gets dumped into the flag itself and dissipates in the wavering flag.
It's possible that the flag pole system acts like a "resonant seismograph" that is quite sensitive to the vibrations of the astronaut acting like a 130 kg "ground thumper" and gives an exaggerated response to the sound waves traveling through the moon's surface.
But I seriously doubt that that possibility occurred to you.
-
or a small meteorite hit it or solar winds from the sun or gaseous venting on the lunar lander or a .... but I am betting they forgot to turn the air conditioning vent above the stage off.
-
There is lots of video that shows the flag not moving _at all_, not one little bitty flutter or twitch or wave, when there is nobody close to it.
Look at the documentary I posted up above for examples.
But of course that video footage is faked too, isn't it.
Don't forget: there was no CGI in those days. The technology simply _DID NOT EXIST_ to fake things like the videos of the LEM in space, approaching the Command Module for docking, and etc. Look at any big-budget sci-fi movie from the 60s and 70s.... nothing in them looks so real as the _real_ footage from the Apollo missions. Even "2001", Kubrick's best effort, released in 1968.... you can tell the space scenes were filmed using models.
Today of course things are different, thanks to computers. CGI and special effects have overtaken reality. But remember... those NASA videos were released back then in real time. They were not made last week and back-dated.
-
Well, you belong in a Physics 101 class because you are dead wrong and it's futile because you are determined to resist what I am saying to you.
One of the great weaknesses of this forum is the abject fear and/or messed up peer pressure to not correct a mistake being made by one of your friends. Only LibreEnergia has the "guts" to tell you that you are wrong.
This seriousness weakness in this forum means that people can get away with saying the most ridiculous stuff or simply make flat-out wrong statements and almost nobody will correct them. It's ridiculous and totally counter-productive.
So right now you are a victim of the very serious flaw in this forum because your friends are reading you making a crazy mistake - like you are lacking in basic physics common sense - and they are saying nothing and it all just becomes a spectacle.
I wish some other people would step up to the plate and post here telling Brad that he is dead wrong. Only if that happens will you then come out of your trance, wake up, and do some research and undertake to educate yourself and learn what you need to learn. And then if you have any guts you will come back and make a posting acknowledging that you were wrong the whole time.
Im done with you MH.
You need help. If you cannot understand as to the difference in weight between what you stated and the correct weight of the combined, and the energy used to raise the astronaut and his suit, and that being the exact energy returned to the moons surface, then your lost.
You have done nothing but do your best to disrail this thread, in order to keep your moon walkers safe. In no way have you tried to look at this from a scientific way, but in stead, put up incorrect values to increase your chances of some one believing in your idiotic moon quake man.
Now what you need to do is think about you mistake, and correct it. And if you believe that for one minute that anyone is going to believe that an astronaut and his suit that weighs 130kgs is going to have the same impact on the moons surface to that of an astronaut and his suit that weighs 600% less than that on the moon-you have rocks in your head.
I am not wronv MH , and that is why no one is saying I am except Libre, who I expect did not know the whole story to this argument.
Once again MH, if an astronaute and his suit weighs 130kgs on the moon, then the energy dissipated when he lands on the surface will 600% more than an astronaut and his suit that weighs a total of only 21.45kgs, when there motion is the same. If you think that it will be the same due to the mass being the same-then like I said-you had better throw away those books.because that is utter crap
-
You are in a very strange place right now Brad.
A 130 kg astronaut hitting the moon at 2 meters per second will hit the moon with the same impact energy as a 130 kg astronaut hitting the Earth at 2 meters per second.
And you clearly can't understand that because you have a mental block because all that you can see is that his weight is lower in the moon's gravity. You think that the weight somehow "overrides" the mass, which is wrong.
Let's take it to the extreme and perhaps this will wake you up and and make you see the light.
An astronaut with a mass of 130 kg is up close to a small asteroid in the asteroid belt. The asteroid has a diameter of a few hundred meters and has a mass of several million metric tons but it's gravity field is only 0.0001 G.
The astronaut is out of control and careening towards the asteroid at 10 meters per second and he is going to crash into it.
But according to you, that's no problem. He only "weighs" "13 grams" (using your terminology).
Yeah, sure. The astronaut only weighs 13 grams so when he hits the stationary asteroid that has a mass of millions of metric tons at 10 meters per second he will not be injured. After all, the amount of energy in the crash would be like throwing a 13-gram chunk of cheese at the ground on Earth.
Can you see how ridiculous your train of thought is now? Time for you to wake up.
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=16359.msg472605#msg472605 date=1454044698
You are in a very strange place right now Brad.
A 130 kg astronaut hitting the moon at 2 meters per second will hit the moon with the same impact energy as a 130 kg astronaut hitting the Earth at 2 meters per second.
MH,you must be smoking some good stuff over there. Do you even look at your own writing's?.
How on earth(or the moon) do you come up with the astronaut weighing the same on the moon as he weighs on earth. Continually you make the same mistake over and over--you are really starting to make your self look stupid--this is the (must believe in the moon landings)stupid. The astronaut that weigh's 130 KG's on earth will not weigh 130 KG's on the moon. Do you not know the difference between the earth's and moon's gravitational force. If your astronaut weighs 130KG's on the moon,he will weigh some where near 787 KG's here on earth.--do you see how flawed your statement is,and how incorrect you are when you try and say the same astronaut will weigh the same here on earth as he dose on the moon.
Here are exact weights MH
The suit complete with the PLSS weighed 180lb's here on earth
Neil Armstrong (we'll use him as our example) weighed 165lb's here on earth.
The combined weight is 345lb's here on earth.
So how much dose he and his suit complete weigh on the moon MH?
I now see you are trying out your tricks again MH,to try and save face-but once again,you have failed,as i caught you out again. You always try and twist and turn thing's around as soon as you realize you have screwed up,and now people watching this thread will see what you have done.
Once again,your weights used to try and justify your argument that the astronauts and there suits caused moon quakes large enough to cause the flag pole to bounce around that much that the flag started wavering.
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.
As we are talking about the flag wavering on the moon,and you have stated that the flag pole is made to !rattle!,we know you are referring to the moon when you say ground. I now see you have tried to slip in a curve ball-->A 130 kg astronaut hitting the moon at 2 meters per second will hit the moon with the same impact energy as a 130 kg astronaut hitting the Earth at 2 meters per second
Once again you have screwed up in your attempt at yet another misdirection. We all know that MH-we all know that the same mass with the same velocity will impact any surface with the same energy. But once again MH,the astronauts will not be traveling at the same velocity-will they. We have all seen the NASA video's you love so much,and we also know due to the difference in the gravitational acceleration between earth and the moon,the astronauts will have an do have a lower velocity on the moon when they bounce around--we can all see this in the slow motion NASA video's MH-->nice try,but i caught you out again.
So MH,when Neil and his suit jump up to a height of say 300mm here on earth,and he dose the same on the moon,will he impact the moon with the same,less,or more energy than he would here on earth--it's that simple MH. Your moon quakes DO NOT come from an astronaut and his suit that have a combined weight of 290lb's as you tried to peddle-your moon quakes come from an astronaut and suit that has a combine weight of only 47.85lb's.
The only reason you are fighting this with your incorrect rubbish,is so it looks better for you ,as you know that anyone that reads a measly weight of 47.85lb's as being the cause for these moon quakes that are large enough in magnitude to make a flag wave around,are just going to laugh at you.
And you clearly can't understand that because you have a mental block because all that you can see is that his weight is lower in the moon's gravity. You think that the weight somehow "overrides" the mass, which is wrong.
There you go again,another attempt at misdirection. It is you that has the metal block MH,and the more you try to misdirect the original argument,the more i will expose you for what you are.
The mass remains the same ,regardless of where that mass is. The weight of that mass changes between the earth and the moon. On the moon,the astronauts velocity is slower due to the lower gravitational force,than it would be here on earth if the same motion of the astronaut on the moon is recreated here on earth--can you not see the reduced velocity in there movements on the moon MH,from those lovely videos?.
Let's take it to the extreme and perhaps this will wake you up and and make you see the light.
An astronaut with a mass of 130 kg is up close to a small asteroid in the asteroid belt. The asteroid has a diameter of a few hundred meters and has a mass of several million metric tons but it's gravity field is only 0.0001 G.
The astronaut is out of control and careening towards the asteroid at 10 meters per second and he is going to crash into it.
But according to you, that's no problem. He only "weighs" "13 grams" (using your terminology).
Yeah, sure. The astronaut only weighs 13 grams so when he hits the stationary asteroid that has a mass of millions of metric tons at 10 meters per second he will not be injured. After all, the amount of energy in the crash would be like throwing a 13-gram chunk of cheese at the ground on Earth.
Can you see how ridiculous your train of thought is now? Time for you to wake up
That is not my train of thought MH-that is your attempt at misdirection-and i caught you out again.
You are trying very hard to make your original statement and weight measurements stick,but they do not. You need to go and learn the difference between the earths and moons gravitational force MH. You need to use weights that reflect that of those on the moon,when trying to present a theory base around moon activities--not bloody weights that are relevant to earth.
So i will try one last time MH.
The weight of the astronaut and his suit bouncing past the flag on the moon,is NOT 290lb's,it is 47.85lb's. The impact energy on the moon surface made by an astronaut and suit that weighs (the correct weight of)47.85lb's is going to be over 600% less than the impact energy of an astronaut and his suit that weighs 290lb's on the moon,where there motion and velocity are the same.
One last time MH-which has the most impact force
1-290lb's impacting the moon at 2m/sec, or 47.85lb's impacting the moon at 2m/sec ?
Get your weights right MH,as it makes a big difference when you are in an environment that has 1/6th the gravity of earth. And stop trying to twist things around,so as you can try and save your idiotic moon quake theory-->which i might mention that you dropped as soon as you thought PW had a better theory--which fell in a big hole as well ::)
Brad.
-
Do you even bother to check the references I provide for you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6dZVM1UuwQ
etc. etc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmVxSFnjYCA&list=PLMu_JGF2rQtd7QSZwWBz_pNzThMg2_E0_
Lol,myth busters.
The first successful tests were carried out in 1962 when a team from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology succeeded in observing laser pulses reflected from moon's surface using a laser with a millisecond pulse length. Similar measurements were obtained later the same year by a Soviet team at the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory using a Q-switched ruby laser.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTL86Ua8UAM
That lift off video would have to be the worst attempt at replicating a lift from the moon.
When leaving the ground ,and heading straight up,you do not get ground objects coming into frame from the top right corner,and reducing in size and exiting the bottom left corner lol. Look at any video of a camera attached to a rocket ,and you will see that all land form enters view from all side of the camera view. NASA got it very close to right in the apollo 17 video of the lift off from the moon. The apollo 11 liftoff video is clearly fake,and in no way represents the view from a camera that is attached to a space craft that is heading away from the surface of the moon.
As i said,NASA got it very close to right in apollo 17,and apollo 15 @ 9:40
Here is how it should look. View small screen in top right corner during liftoff--see the difference.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6dZVM1UuwQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlGis35Epvs
-
Well this bit of evidence should keep the believers busy for a while--lets see how you go with this one.
I want you all to know that i have nothing against the American people,as i have many friends from there,and think you are a great bunch of people. My peeve is not just with NASA,as they are only puppets controlled by the puppet master-that being the government. And it is not only the American government that i have issues with,it is with all western government's,and the way they conduct them self. It is also very sad to hear that your constitution and your rights in accordance with that constitution can be simply over ruled by your current president Mr Obama. So i see that you are about to go down the same path we Australians went down some time ago-that being in regards to your right to bare arm's,and how those rights will be changed without any regard to your constitution. I wish you all well on that one. The fact is,my government is no better than any other western government,and some how we have gone from governments that are suppose to represent us and our well being,to governments that believe they can do what ever they feel like doing-regardless of weather it is in our best interest or not. We only have to look at the WFC bail out,and who got bailed out,and who lost there homes-->the public paid for the crimes of the big banks.
To go any further forward in this world,we have to expose these governments for what they are,and the lies and deceit they practice. So if you think i have the shit's on with the way governments treat the public these days--your dam straight i have. Anyway,on with the project at hand.
Before i posted this video,i did some double checking my self-as can all of you here. Everything in this video is true,and that will be quite easy for you to find out your self. I will post some expanded HD pictures,along with the direct link to the album the pictures came from. I have added a few more than the video had. All pictures are during TEC" (Trans-Earth Coast), which was during the return journey to Earth after the moonwalks had already taken place. I will post a couple of pictures in the next 4 post,as they are large,and there is a limit to how many i can put in one post. The thread page will also expand when i post these pictures,and i am sorry for that,but i want to present the best quality pictures i can.
The link to the album the pictures cam from is below,along with NASA'a reference PDF for the apollo 17 mission 70mm,35mm,and 16mm photograph's. All verbal statements by Cernan and Schmitt regarding the condition of there hands, can be heard in the Apollo 17 video's.
As you will see in every picture,there hands have not been submitted to any type of trauma they claim. There is not one post moon landing picture that shows any type of stress they claimed there hands were under,or any of the injuries they claimed was caused by the gloves during moon surface activities.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR3KeHq_tJI
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157658592613769
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17.photidx.pdf
Brad
-
Hands in good condition pt2
-
Hands in good condition pt3
Can even hold a shaver,and have a shave using soap.
-
Hands in good condition pt4
-
One of you naysayers should go to work for NASA and become an astronaut and learn for yourselves. Then they will be able to come back and tell the rest of you the your programed beliefs are full of $#!+. Till then I guess you will just go on with your programing just like those I will be confronting soon who won't believe what I will be showing. ::)
-
Brad:
You are still in a very loopy place. One more time in your long post you contradict yourself.
How on earth(or the moon) do you come up with the astronaut weighing the same on the moon as he weighs on earth. Continually you make the same mistake over and over--you are really starting to make your self look stupid--this is the (must believe in the moon landings)stupid. The astronaut that weigh's 130 KG's on earth will not weigh 130 KG's on the moon. Do you not know the difference between the earth's and moon's gravitational force. If your astronaut weighs 130KG's on the moon,he will weigh some where near 787 KG's here on earth.--do you see how flawed your statement is,and how incorrect you are when you try and say the same astronaut will weigh the same here on earth as he dose on the moon.
I said this, "A 130 kg astronaut hitting the moon at 2 meters per second will hit the moon with the same impact energy as a 130 kg astronaut hitting the Earth at 2 meters per second."
You are making yourself look beyond stupid. How many times does it have to be pounded into your head that when you use kilograms you are talking about mass? I am talking about the MASS of the astronaut. Let it sink in. Even though he weighs less on the moon the impact energy will be the same.
You always try and twist and turn thing's around as soon as you realize you have screwed up,and now people watching this thread will see what you have done.
That's total bullshit because you are getting frustrated and angry so you need to make up stories about me that are false. I will just remind you that I am the one that has no problem admitting when I am wrong and you are the one that says nothing, turns blue, and runs away.
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.
You are quoting me again so I will say it again and we will see if it sinks into your head: When I posted that I was using colloquial English and I meant 290 pounds of mass. Subsequent to that I switched to kilograms so there would be no ambiguity. Now can your brain process that or is it going to pass right through you again like you are not even there and you are going to repeat it again?
We all know that MH-we all know that the same mass with the same velocity will impact any surface with the same energy.
Here is your moment of lucidity where you are making sense and agreeing with me. And you are also contradicting yourself as evidenced by your other statements.
But once again MH,the astronauts will not be traveling at the same velocity-will they.
WHO SAID THAT? You said that but I didn't. Here you are showing your limitations one more time. I only said that a 130 kg astronaut hitting the surface of the moon would cause a tremor. I said nothing about velocity. But your brain cannot cope with taking what I said at face value and you have to rewrite the statement in your head and change what I am saying.
You are not going to change what I am saying to make it fit into a scenario that only you can cope with and understand. You have to take what I said at face value, period. I know it's hard for you, you feel compelled to twist what I am saying into your own scenario because that's the only thing you can understand. The answer to that is NO, take what I am saying to you at face value WITHOUT CHANGING IT. Can you cope with that?
We have all seen the NASA video's you love so much,and we also know due to the difference in the gravitational acceleration between earth and the moon,the astronauts will have an do have a lower velocity on the moon when they bounce around--we can all see this in the slow motion NASA video's MH-->nice try,but i caught you out again.
I am going to pound it into your head until you get it. In my example I don't care about the velocity and I never said anything about the velocity. I just said that an 130 kg astronaut hitting the surface of the moon will cause a tremor that that might be able to make the flag shake. Beyond that, when an astronaut that is on Earth and jumps up with 500 joules of energy, he will hit the ground with 500 joules of energy in the impact when he lands. If the same astronaut is on the moon and jumps up with 500 joules of energy then he will hit the moon's surface with 500 joules of energy when he lands. In both cases he hits the ground with the same speed but he has more air time on the moon. Myself and LibreEnergia have already told you this.
Your moon quakes DO NOT come from an astronaut and his suit that have a combined weight of 290lb's as you tried to peddle-your moon quakes come from an astronaut and suit that has a combine weight of only 47.85lb's.
The only reason you are fighting this with your incorrect rubbish,is so it looks better for you ,as you know that anyone that reads a measly weight of 47.85lb's as being the cause for these moon quakes that are large enough in magnitude to make a flag wave around,are just going to laugh at you.
And you are back in your Twilight Zone again. One more time you are saying that it's astronaut's equivalent weight on the moon that determines his impact energy when it's his mass that determines his impact energy.
You seemingly cannot understand that it's the astronaut's mass that determines the impact energy and not his effective weight. And yet in the same posting you say, "We all know that MH-we all know that the same mass with the same velocity will impact any surface with the same energy." You have got scrambled brains.
The weight of that mass changes between the earth and the moon. On the moon,the astronauts velocity is slower due to the lower gravitational force,than it would be here on earth if the same motion of the astronaut on the moon is recreated here on earth--can you not see the reduced velocity in there movements on the moon MH,from those lovely videos?.
I will tell you again, I did not mention the velocity in my example.
One last time MH-which has the most impact force
1-290lb's impacting the moon at 2m/sec, or 47.85lb's impacting the moon at 2m/sec ?
You still cannot understand that the magnitude of the impact is determined by the mass and not the weight.
The energy in the impact is one-half the mass times the velocity-squared.
Get your weights right MH,as it makes a big difference when you are in an environment that has 1/6th the gravity of earth. And stop trying to twist things around,so as you can try and save your idiotic moon quake theory-->which i might mention that you dropped as soon as you thought PW had a better theory--which fell in a big hole as well
The moon quake theory is perfectly legitimate and I did not drop it. I said I favoured PW's explanation over the moon quake theory but they were both viable candidates. And that shows you how serious your issues are. You can be told stuff straight to your face multiple times and it doesn't register with you or it does resister with you but you like to spin the "truth" just as bad or even worse than the politicians that you despise. Either way, it's a serious issue with you.
MileHigh
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=16359.msg472649#msg472649 date=1454091788
MileHigh
[/quote]
I said this, "A 130 kg astronaut hitting the moon at 2 meters per second will hit the moon with the same impact energy as a 130 kg astronaut hitting the Earth at 2 meters per second."
And i agreed with that MH--we all know this. But the velocity of the astronauts is set by the video in question,and this velocity is set by the acceleration of G on the moon--not earth. We are talking about the moons acceleration of G MH,as we are debating as to how the flag wavered on the moon. So your weights that are associated with that velocity are incorrect--and you know it. You tried to use the earth acceleration of G to describe the weight of an astronaut on the moon-->and that's the bottom line-->you got it wrong.
You are making yourself look beyond stupid. How many times does it have to be pounded into your head that when you use kilograms you are talking about mass? I am talking about the MASS of the astronaut. Let it sink in. Even though he weighs less on the moon the impact energy will be the same.
It will not be the same MH,as the velocity on the moon dose not relate to the weight's you posted-regardless of there mass. Who is looking beyond stupid MH?. Surely you can work out your mistake MH-that you are making over and over. The weights you posted are for the acceleration of G on earth--not the moon. Earth 9.8m/sec squared-->moon 1.625m/sec Squared.
Velocity of 130kg Astronaught & suit dropped from 2 meter height on the moon is the same as astronaut & suit weighing 21.45kg's dropped from a two meter height on the moon. Impact energy of astronaut weighing 130kg's on the moon is 606.06% more than astronaut weighing 21.45kg's on the moon. To state that your astronaut and suit weighs 130 kg's on the moon,and the moons gravitational acceleration is 1.625m/sec squared,would mean that your astronaut would weigh 787.87kg's here on earth due to the earths gravitational acceleration being 9.8m/sec squared. There for,your astronaut that weighs(as you stated) 130kg's on the moon,has a mass of 787.87kg's--not 130kg's. If you cannot see your error MH,then maybe you need to slow down a little,and think for a while about what you are going to write.
That's total bullshit because you are getting frustrated and angry so you need to make up stories about me that are false. I will just remind you that I am the one that has no problem admitting when I am wrong and you are the one that says nothing, turns blue, and runs away.
I am running now where MH,as i have spent !!how much time!!? trying to show you your error.
Your astronaut ans suit that has a weight of 130kg's on the moon(that you have stated on many occasions now) has a mass of 787.87kg-not 130kg's as you continue to use as your example. If your astronaut weighed 21.45kg's on the moon(as i have corrected for you),!then! he would have a mass of 130kg's.
You are quoting me again so I will say it again and we will see if it sinks into your head: When I posted that I was using colloquial English and I meant 290 pounds of mass. Subsequent to that I switched to kilograms so there would be no ambiguity. Now can your brain process that or is it going to pass right through you again like you are not even there and you are going to repeat it again?
Once again,you posted the weight of the astronaut and his suit on the moon,and your were referring to weight when putting forth your theory. The weight you posted dose not reflect the correct mass for that weight on the moon,and now you have spent!!how long!!? trying to tell me that i am the one that has made the mistake,when it is clearly you that has made the mistake. So stop trying to turn your mistake around on me.
Here is your moment of lucidity where you are making sense and agreeing with me. And you are also contradicting yourself as evidenced by your other statements.
I agreed with you when you used mass(that is calculated here on earth as kg's),i do not agree with your claim as to what the astronauts weigh on the moon. Weight on the moon is not the mass of the object. I have not contradicted my self at all,you just have your weights and mass all screwed up.
WHO SAID THAT? You said that but I didn't. Here you are showing your limitations one more time. I only said that a 130 kg astronaut hitting the surface of the moon would cause a tremor. I said nothing about velocity. But your brain cannot cope with taking what I said at face value and you have to rewrite the statement in your head and change what I am saying.
I have changed nothing to what you said-- Quote:
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.
You chose to use weight that relate to the astronaut and his suit on the moon--not mass.
My brain was working quite well at the time thank you,and i corrected your mistake. From then on in,you have done nothing but try and twist it all around,so as you can save face.
You are not going to change what I am saying to make it fit into a scenario that only you can cope with and understand. You have to take what I said at face value, period. I know it's hard for you, you feel compelled to twist what I am saying into your own scenario because that's the only thing you can understand. The answer to that is NO, take what I am saying to you at face value WITHOUT CHANGING IT. Can you cope with that?
As you can see above,i have change nothing of what you said MH.
I will also not allow you to post incorrect weights of the astronaut and his suit to try and make your silly moon quake theory sound better. You insist that all the rest of us be accurate,and word things correctly--so you !will! do the same.
I am going to pound it into your head until you get it. In my example I don't care about the velocity and I never said anything about the velocity.
The velocity is set by that in the video in question,the video where as you are trying to put together a theory to explain as to why the flag wavers. You do not get to choose the velocity MH,when trying to explain the events in the video that sets that velocity.
I just said that an 130 kg astronaut hitting the surface of the moon will cause a tremor that that might be able to make the flag shake.
And this is the bit you just do not understand MH.
Your astronaut either weighs 130kg's on the moon,and has a mass of 787.87kg--or he ways 21.45kg's on the moon,and has a mass of 130kg's--which is it MH?
Beyond that, when an astronaut that is on Earth and jumps up with 500 joules of energy, he will hit the ground with 500 joules of energy in the impact when he lands. If the same astronaut is on the moon and jumps up with 500 joules of energy then he will hit the moon's surface with 500 joules of energy when he lands. In both cases he hits the ground with the same speed but he has more air time on the moon. Myself and LibreEnergia have already told you this.
Not only dose this have nothing to do with your weights used,or the velocity that is set by the video in question,it is already something i(and most others) already know,and if you go back and read the thread,you will see on a number of occasions i have agreed with that. But that has nothing to do with what we are talking about,and that was just a sad attempt by you to side track the real issue--which is the weights of the astronaut and his suit on the moon you used ,were incorrect,and do not represent the actual mass of that astronaut and his suit.
130kg's on the moon MH,is a mass of 787.87kg. Weight and mass on the moon MH are two different values--weight and mass on earth(which we were not discussing) are the same value.
And you are back in your Twilight Zone again. One more time you are saying that it's astronaut's equivalent weight on the moon that determines his impact energy when it's his mass that determines his impact energy.
No MH,you are saying his weight on the moon is his mass--which it is not. His weight on the moon is 1/6th that of his actual mass as measured here on earth.
You seemingly cannot understand that it's the astronaut's mass that determines the impact energy and not his effective weight. And yet in the same posting you say, "We all know that MH-we all know that the same mass with the same velocity will impact any surface with the same energy." You have got scrambled brains.
Another lie MH?. I fully understand that it's the astronauts mass and velocity that determines the impact energy,so what you wrote above is a lie. What you do not seem to grasp MH,that the astronauts !weight!(as you specified)on the moon, is not the astronauts mass. This is why it is important to use correct terms MH--isnt it-as you demand in nearly every other thread on this forum-->be accurate with measurements and use correct terms. You need to adhere to your own demands MH.
I will tell you again, I did not mention the velocity in my example.
And i will tell you again,that the velocity is set by the motion of the astronaut in the video in question--you know MH,the one we were trying to theorize about.
You still cannot understand that the magnitude of the impact is determined by the mass and not the weight.
Once again-another lie,and i am glad everyone here can see it all.
And once again MH-i know the magnitude of the impact is determined by the mass and Velocity(which you keep leaving out),and not the weight. What you dont understand MH, is that the astronauts weight on the moon,is not his mass.
The energy in the impact is one-half the mass times the velocity-squared.
And?. I know this MH.
The moon quake theory is perfectly legitimate and I did not drop it.I said I favoured PW's explanation over the moon quake theory but they were both viable candidates.And that shows you how serious your issues are. You can be told stuff straight to your face multiple times and it doesn't register with you or it does resister with you but you like to spin the "truth" just as bad or even worse than the politicians that you despise. Either way, it's a serious issue with you.
Lol. Never in the history of this forum ,have i seen you put your self in it as much as you have in this thread MH.
Quote MH,reply 124
Now that I know that the space suit was off-gassing by sublimating ice to remove heat, I am going to drop my explanation and go with PW's explanation.
Now who has the serious issues MH?.
Stop bullshitting .
Brad
-
The answer is you have serious issues.
Read this:
I said this, "A 130 kg astronaut hitting the moon at 2 meters per second will hit the moon with the same impact energy as a 130 kg astronaut hitting the Earth at 2 meters per second."
How many times does it have to be pounded into your head that when you use kilograms you are talking about mass? I am talking about the MASS of the astronaut. Let it sink in. Even though he weighs less on the moon the impact energy will be the same.
Now read this:
It will not be the same MH,as the velocity on the moon dose not relate to the weight's you posted-regardless of there mass. Who is looking beyond stupid MH?. Surely you can work out your mistake MH-that you are making over and over. The weights you posted are for the acceleration of G on earth--not the moon. Earth 9.8m/sec squared-->moon 1.625m/sec Squared.
Velocity of 130kg Astronaught & suit dropped from 2 meter height on the moon is the same as astronaut & suit weighing 21.45kg's dropped from a two meter height on the moon. Impact energy of astronaut weighing 130kg's on the moon is 606.06% more than astronaut weighing 21.45kg's on the moon. To state that your astronaut and suit weighs 130 kg's on the moon,and the moons gravitational acceleration is 1.625m/sec squared,would mean that your astronaut would weigh 787.87kg's here on earth due to the earths gravitational acceleration being 9.8m/sec squared. There for,your astronaut that weighs(as you stated) 130kg's on the moon,has a mass of 787.87kg's--not 130kg's. If you cannot see your error MH,then maybe you need to slow down a little,and think for a while about what you are going to write.
So tell me, what's the issue?
-
The answer is you have serious issues.
Read this:
I said this, "A 130 kg astronaut hitting the moon at 2 meters per second will hit the moon with the same impact energy as a 130 kg astronaut hitting the Earth at 2 meters per second."
How many times does it have to be pounded into your head that when you use kilograms you are talking about mass? I am talking about the MASS of the astronaut. Let it sink in. Even though he weighs less on the moon the impact energy will be the same.
Now read this:
It will not be the same MH,as the velocity on the moon dose not relate to the weight's you posted-regardless of there mass. Who is looking beyond stupid MH?. Surely you can work out your mistake MH-that you are making over and over. The weights you posted are for the acceleration of G on earth--not the moon. Earth 9.8m/sec squared-->moon 1.625m/sec Squared.
Velocity of 130kg Astronaught & suit dropped from 2 meter height on the moon is the same as astronaut & suit weighing 21.45kg's dropped from a two meter height on the moon. Impact energy of astronaut weighing 130kg's on the moon is 606.06% more than astronaut weighing 21.45kg's on the moon. To state that your astronaut and suit weighs 130 kg's on the moon,and the moons gravitational acceleration is 1.625m/sec squared,would mean that your astronaut would weigh 787.87kg's here on earth due to the earths gravitational acceleration being 9.8m/sec squared. There for,your astronaut that weighs(as you stated) 130kg's on the moon,has a mass of 787.87kg's--not 130kg's. If you cannot see your error MH,then maybe you need to slow down a little,and think for a while about what you are going to write.
So tell me, what's the issue?
The issue is,you used the weight that the astronaut weighs on the moon--which is not his mass. His weight is only his mass when you state his weight on earth. As we are talking about happenings on the moon,then post there weight that is relevant to the moon-not there weight(mass) that is relevant to the earth(a place where they are not).
Or- state that you are using mass weight,and not lunar weight.
You MH-->you got it wrong. You have lied throughout this thread ever since you screwed up with your weights,and then trying to make your self look like you got it right by presenting things that had nothing to do with the issue at all.
Anyway--all is here to read by every one now,and they can all make up there own mind.
I will no longer be distracted by your unjustifiable babble.
Brad
-
The issue is,you used the weight that the astronaut weighs on the moon--which is not his mass. His weight is only his mass when you state his weight on earth. As we are talking about happenings on the moon,then post there weight that is relevant to the moon-not there weight(mass) that is relevant to the earth(a place where they are not).
Or- state that you are using mass weight,and not lunar weight.
You MH-->you got it wrong. You have lied throughout this thread ever since you screwed up with your weights,and then trying to make your self look like you got it right by presenting things that had nothing to do with the issue at all.
Anyway--all is here to read by every one now,and they can all make up there own mind.
I will no longer be distracted by your unjustifiable babble.
Brad
You are unwittingly proving my point and I am not surprised that you believe that I am lying.
-
The missing electrons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pn2aesPZMok
-
http://techcrunch.com/2016/01/30/china-just-released-true-color-hd-photos-of-the-moon/
Mags
-
Brad:
Stop bullshitting .
You are accusing me of being a liar because I said this, "The moon quake theory is perfectly legitimate and I did not drop it."
So you took my very first statement after I learned about PW's explanation and quoted me out of context. Then you take my last quote where I denied that I dropped the moon quake theory and accused me of being a liar.
I said this early on in the thread, "I am going to drop my explanation and go with PW's explanation," and then I said this at the end of the thread, "The moon quake theory is perfectly legitimate and I did not drop it" so I must be a liar according to you.
You are not going to accuse me of being a liar. You are the one that is lying because you are playing a silly immature selective memory game and we are going to straighten this out.
Quoting myself from post #124:
Now that I know that the space suit was off-gassing by sublimating ice to remove heat, I am going to drop my explanation and go with PW's explanation. I was hedging my bets by going with the "ground thump" explanation because that's the only one that I was aware of that solved the mystery.
Here is how you quoted me in post #124:
Now that I know that the space suit was off-gassing by sublimating ice to remove heat, I am going to drop my explanation and go with PW's explanation.
You intentionally left out the last sentence because you wanted to spin it your way like a sleazy lying politician.
More importantly, quoting myself from post #127 the next day:
Off-gassing from the space suit and a small localized moon tremor from the astronaut's impact on the lunar surface are two perfectly reasonable explanations for the waving flag. I learned something the other day and changed my view and you seem to think there is something wrong with that.
Here is what I said in post #136:
I simply said that an astronaut and his space suit hitting the surface of the moon could create a localized tremor in the surface material and that could make the flag move.
Here is what I said in post #142:
The earth quake theory is not "utter rubbish." If you drop a mass of one kilogram onto the surface of the moon from a height of one meter, where does that energy go?
Here is what I said in post #150:
Yes, and the flag is planted in that moon. But I suppose you have a bionic eye like the six million dollar man and it calculated exactly how much energy impacted onto the flag pole and you are "sure" that your bionic eye is right when it said that the flag should not shake.... You have superpowers.
Here is what I said in post #163:
I will say it to you again to see if it sinks in. I simply stated that when the astronaut hits the moon's surface it could create a tremor that makes the flag shake. I did not talk about dropping from a certain height. I did not even mention the final velocity.
Here is what I said in post #181:
With respect to the flag pole planted in the moon's crust, there is a distinct possibility that when a sound wave traveling through the crust hits it from the astronaut's impact something interesting happens.
It's possible that the low-frequency sound wave from the "thump" is close enough to a resonant frequency mode of the flag pole system - the vertical flag pole, the horizontal pole holding up the flag, and the flag itself. A small amount of energy in the sound wave travels up the vertical flag pole and then into the horizontal pole holding up the flag, and then the energy gets dumped into the flag itself and dissipates in the wavering flag.
You are accusing me of being a liar and that crossed a line for me, when it's really you that's the liar. I am saying that you are a liar because you made it a point of going back through this thread multiple times to pull up quotes and it would clearly be impossible for you to miss all of my quoted statements above. You really hit a low.
The issue of the mass vs. weight is another story all together. I tried hard to get you to think logically about this for your own benefit but it turned out to be impossible. Wait two weeks and go and read the thread over again and if you are lucky you may be able to detect your own mass confusion over this issue as well as your serious English comprehension and self expression problems. Seriously, it's almost insane to read what you said and how your scrambled thought processes were working over and over again. This sentence from you is a doozie and summarizes it all, "Or- state that you are using mass weight." This thread was me trying desperately to turn the complete mass confusion in your head into something correct, logical and sensible and I failed. Perhaps more importantly, you failed yourself because you are so pig-headed.
Anyway, I am no liar and take my advice and wait two weeks and reread this thread at a slow calm pace.
MileHigh
-
Brad:
You are accusing me of being a liar because I said this, "The moon quake theory is perfectly legitimate and I did not drop it."
So you took my very first statement after I learned about PW's explanation and quoted me out of context. Then you take my last quote where I denied that I dropped the moon quake theory and accused me of being a liar.
I said this early on in the thread, "I am going to drop my explanation and go with PW's explanation," and then I said this at the end of the thread, "The moon quake theory is perfectly legitimate and I did not drop it" so I must be a liar according to you.
You are not going to accuse me of being a liar. You are the one that is lying because you are playing a silly immature selective memory game and we are going to straighten this out.
Quoting myself from post #124:
Here is how you quoted me in post #124:
You intentionally left out the last sentence because you wanted to spin it your way like a sleazy lying politician.
More importantly, quoting myself from post #127 the next day:
Here is what I said in post #136:
Here is what I said in post #142:
Here is what I said in post #150:
Here is what I said in post #163:
Here is what I said in post #181:
You are accusing me of being a liar and that crossed a line for me, when it's really you that's the liar. I am saying that you are a liar because you made it a point of going back through this thread multiple times to pull up quotes and it would clearly be impossible for you to miss all of my quoted statements above. You really hit a low.
The issue of the mass vs. weight is another story all together. I tried hard to get you to think logically about this for your own benefit but it turned out to be impossible. Wait two weeks and go and read the thread over again and if you are lucky you may be able to detect your own mass confusion over this issue as well as your serious English comprehension and self expression problems. Seriously, it's almost insane to read what you said and how your scrambled thought processes were working over and over again. This sentence from you is a doozie and summarizes it all, "Or- state that you are using mass weight." This thread was me trying desperately to turn the complete mass confusion in your head into something correct, logical and sensible and I failed. Perhaps more importantly, you failed yourself because you are so pig-headed.
Anyway, I am no liar and take my advice and wait two weeks and reread this thread at a slow calm pace.
MileHigh
MH
You are welcome to make comments here,but when you start to put together theories to explain anomalies,then you will be accurate and correct when you post the data to explain that anomaly.
E.G-as we are talking about events that !apparently! took place on the moon,then you will use weights that are associated with the moon-not weights associated with earth. Or simply put -the mass weight,or the lunar weight--just describe what weight you are referring to-it's that simple.
Through out this forum,you have post's all over the place that insist the people here use accurate wording and data,but here,when discussing some so important,you decide to just throw in weights that could have many different value's.
In regards to saying that you are dropping your explanation,and going with PW's in stead,and then saying that you did not drop it--regardless of you saying that your explanation was legit and plausible ,you still said you are going to drop it. You are right,i did pull out a direct quote,but that is the only way to give a direct answer--you do this very often your self. Even on this thread alone,you oull out simple little mistakes of mine,and place the comer mark where it should be,and correct spelling when i miss spell something--this is how critical you are of other peoples writing's MH,and so now that you are getting some of your own medicine back,you don't like it. What go's around,comes around MH--you need to stick to your own protocols MH.
When dealing with great claim's (like an OU device), sound theories do not cut the cake--as you so often point out. So now that you have one of these sound theories about the flag wavering in an environment that has no atmosphere,and where no physical contact was made with the flag,all you have to do now is prove your theory--as you would ask of everyone else on this forum putting up a theory to explain the impossible. If you still like PW's theory,then all you have to do is find out where the out gassing vent is for the suit,and then explain as to how it manages to penetrate the outer micrometeorite proof outer skin of the suit that covers any vents that would be on that side of the suit. TK him self pointed out that the astronaut's bounce past the flags in many other video clip's,and that the flags don't move. I am guessing that he was trying to disprove my theory,but what he has done is to disprove your moon quake theory,as your theory should be present in all the video's--but we see that it is not.
So now you have to either prove your theory MH,or you have to prove PW's theory(as it would seem he has taken leave of this thread).
After that is done,then you could have a crack at explaining as to where all these blisters and damaged skin has gone from all the astronaut's hand's-post moon walk's. No one picture in any of the apollo missions shows any of the astronauts having damaged hand's as they claim in the mission video's-not one.
A quote from wiki
Many conspiracy theorists insist that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax;[59] however, empirical evidence is readily available to show that manned moon landings did indeed occur.
Where is this empirical evidence ?. There is not one shred of solid evidence that clearly shows man went to the moon. Look at the picture below--dose this prove that i went to the moon?-if not,why not?. One landing you believe is real because NASA and the American government told you it is real,and the other landing is fake--because you know that it is fake just from the simple fact that i told you it is. It took me a mere 3 minutes to place my lunar lander and extra rover tracks in there with the very basic window paint program.
Do you know how many craft with high res cameras have been to the moon MH?-
Hiten (Japan)
Lunar Prospector (USA
SMART-1 (ESA
SELENE (Japan
Chang'e 1 (China
LCROSS (USA-LRO carrier
GRAIL (USA
LADEE (USA
Chang'e 3 (China
Not one of these space craft has managed to take just one clear picture of any of the Apollo landing sites--not one. The best we have is the likes of the picture below. Do you really believe that it is impossible to get just one(just one) clear picture of any of the equipment that was !suppose! to have been left behind by the apollo missions. We seem to have no trouble at all taking high res pictures of people walking around on earth from over 400KM's away,and through the earth's atmosphere,but one clear picture of a lunar lander from as little as 25KM's away with no atmospheric interference seems impossible--yea right ::)
-
Them rover tracks look added in. ;D
Mags
Edit. Wrong image was posted.
-
Brad:
You are welcome to make comments here,but when you start to put together theories to explain anomalies,then you will be accurate and correct when you post the data to explain that anomaly.
E.G-as we are talking about events that !apparently! took place on the moon,then you will use weights that are associated with the moon-not weights associated with earth. Or simply put -the mass weight,or the lunar weight--just describe what weight you are referring to-it's that simple.
Through out this forum,you have post's all over the place that insist the people here use accurate wording and data,but here,when discussing some so important,you decide to just throw in weights that could have many different value's.
Your first place to start is to learn how to express yourself properly when talking about mass and weight in different environments like the Earth, the moon, and in orbit. Here is a simple fact: I was expressing myself correctly the whole time and you weren't. It's true Brad and you need to deal with this issue for yourself. The first time I mentioned pounds there was a little bit of wiggle room for ambiguity but not really if you make a reasonable assumption that the reader will understand the context. Subsequent to that everything I said with respect to mass and weight was correct.
I was expressing myself properly - this is a fact that you need to come to terms with. So you need to roll up your shirtsleeves and do some more research on your own and then understand what I said for starters, and then undertake to learn to express yourself properly about the same thing.
-
Brad:
Your first place to start is to learn how to express yourself properly when talking about mass and weight in different environments like the Earth, the moon, and in orbit. Here is a simple fact: I was expressing myself correctly the whole time and you weren't. It's true Brad and you need to deal with this issue for yourself. The first time I mentioned pounds there was a little bit of wiggle room for ambiguity but not really if you make a reasonable assumption that the reader will understand the context. Subsequent to that everything I said with respect to mass and weight was correct.
I was expressing myself properly - this is a fact that you need to come to terms with. So you need to roll up your shirtsleeves and do some more research on your own and then understand what I said for starters, and then undertake to learn to express yourself properly about the same thing.
MH
It is you that failed to express your self correctly -and that is a fact.
I have not disagreed with anything you said about mass and velocity-that is a fact.
We were talking about astronauts on the moon, and you presented weights that represent mass amounts in lb,s here on earth-not the moon-that is a fact.
When you post weights that are associated with events on the moon, how do you expect any one to know whether those weight are what the astronaut weighs on the moon, or what they weigh on earth (there mass). As we are discussing events on the moon, then it would be very reasonable to assume you were refering to what they weigh on the moon, and not what they weigh on earth. So how you ever came up with it being me that is not expressing myself correctly, I will never know, as it is clearly you that has posted data that could have multiple versions.
Now-what you have to do is verify your theory as a reality. I will accept any video or data you can find that shows enough energy being returned to the ground by some one that has a mass of 130kg, making a flag pole rattle enough to cause a flag to waver, as they skip on past.
OR- show evidence that PWs theory is correct, and that some how, the exausted water vapor can pass through the tough skin of the PLSS unit--right after you first show that the exaust vent is actually on the left side of the PLSS unit.
In the mean time, can you explain as to why there is no sign of injury as stated in the videos by the astronauts, to the astronauts hands?.
Brad.
-
We were talking about astronauts on the moon, and you presented weights that represent mass amounts in lb,s here on earth-not the moon-that is a fact.
When you post weights that are associated with events on the moon, how do you expect any one to know whether those weight are what the astronaut weighs on the moon, or what they weigh on earth (there mass). As we are discussing events on the moon, then it would be very reasonable to assume you were refering to what they weigh on the moon, and not what they weigh on earth. So how you ever came up with it being me that is not expressing myself correctly, I will never know, as it is clearly you that has posted data that could have multiple versions.
Well, the simple truth is that you are mixed up, and my instincts are telling that you have invented your own strange set of spontaneous rules because you are not aware of simple conventions.
I have almost exclusively referred to the astronaut as being 130 kilograms. That means the astronaut has a mass of 130 kilograms. It could be on Earth, it could be on the moon, or it could be in orbit, it doesn't matter where the astronaut is located at all. Every single time that I state kilograms I am talking about the astronaut's mass and I am never talking about the astronaut's weight. I am not really that concerned with the astronauts weight because his weight is self-evident when you state the astronaut's mass based on where he is located. I have tried to get this point across to you many times. I have told you repeatedly that when you use the term "kilograms" you are referring to mass and not weight. I have told you repeatedly that people do not state "kilograms of weight" ever. You are not ever supposed to state "kilograms of weight" when you are having a scientific discussion and you are doing it all the time.
We were talking about astronauts on the moon, and you presented weights that represent mass amounts in lb,s here on earth-not the moon-that is a fact.
You look over what I said above and you read it as many times as are necessary until you come to the conclusion that your statement quoted immediately above is wrong. You have to understand and realize for yourself that I never talked about the weight of the astronaut because I always used kilograms and when you use the term "kilograms" you are only talking about mass, and you are not talking about weight. You get it through your head that when you quote kilograms that it can be on Earth, on the moon, in orbit around the Earth, in orbit around the moon, or floating in space, it does not matter because kilograms are the same everywhere. Likewise, only at the very beginning of the discussion did I discuss "mass in pounds" and I never referred to it after that. I have already explained why I did that just one single time.
So how you ever came up with it being me that is not expressing myself correctly, I will never know, as it is clearly you that has posted data that could have multiple versions."
Only in your head have I "posted data that could have multiple versions." You need absorb what I am saying here and understand it completely. If you can do that and then go back and reread what I have posted in this thread you will realize that I have been consistent in what I have been saying the whole time.
-
Them rover tracks look added in. ;D
Mags
Edit. Wrong image was posted.
Well i could spend a little more time on them,but what about my lander?--looks good for windows paint -dosnt it :o
Notice how the original rover tracks are a zigzag pattern lol.'
-
Now-what you have to do is verify your theory as a reality. I will accept any video or data you can find that shows enough energy being returned to the ground by some one that has a mass of 130kg, making a flag pole rattle enough to cause a flag to waver, as they skip on past.
OR- show evidence that PWs theory is correct, and that some how, the exausted water vapor can pass through the tough skin of the PLSS unit--right after you first show that the exaust vent is actually on the left side of the PLSS unit.
In the mean time, can you explain as to why there is no sign of injury as stated in the videos by the astronauts, to the astronauts hands?.
I asked you what happens when you drop a rock on the surface of the moon and you said the energy in the impact goes into the moon's crust. I don't have any data that shows that the thumping astronaut puts enough impact energy into the surface of the moon to make the flag rattle. The only thing I have is the video, which suggests that possibility. Likewise, you don't have any data that shows that the impact of the astronaut didn't make the flag rattle. So we are both lacking data, except for what inferences that we can make by looking at the video clip. I am not prepared to research the way the moon's crust responds to impact energy.
Nor am I prepared to dig into all of the details of the ice sublimation system that cools the astronaut. There are so many variables and unknowns that it is way beyond my time and expertise to comment on that with any clarity or degree of certainty or accuracy. A real answer would require a full-blown computer simulation to answer the question. So for that one I am just assuming that there is a reasonable possibility it is true also. Even if you knew where the venting orifice on the space suit was, that doesn't give you the answer at all. All that does is give you one small step towards defining the problem.
For the astronaut's hands, please read the YouTube comments on the clip. There are some interesting postings from people that claim they know details about the timeline of the mission and from people that claim they have medical backgrounds. There is what appears to be credible information in the YouTube comments that could explain the issue about the state of the astronaut's hands. I was not aware of the issue at all, so I simply spent 15 minutes reading comments by others.
-
author=MileHigh link=topic=16359.msg472820#msg472820 date=1454322226
Well, the simple truth is that you are mixed up, and my instincts are telling that you have invented your own strange set of spontaneous rules because you are not aware of simple conventions.
I have almost exclusively referred to the astronaut as being 130 kilograms. That means the astronaut has a mass of 130 kilograms. It could be on Earth, it could be on the moon, or it could be in orbit, it doesn't matter where the astronaut is located at all. Every single time that I state kilograms I am talking about the astronaut's mass and I am never talking about the astronaut's weight. I am not really that concerned with the astronauts weight because his weight is self-evident when you state the astronaut's mass based on where he is located. I have tried to get this point across to you many times. I have told you repeatedly that when you use the term "kilograms" you are referring to mass and not weight. I have told you repeatedly that people do not state "kilograms of weight" ever. You are not ever supposed to state "kilograms of weight" when you are having a scientific discussion and you are doing it all the time.
We are going to have this argument for some time- arnt we MH. You simply will not accept the fact that you got it wrong,and continually try to reverse the mistake onto me. Weight is not a measure of mass MH-weight is the measure of the gravitational pull between two objects--you need to understand or learn that MH-->weight is not a measure of mass-weight is a measure of the gravitational pull between two objects. The only place where weight is directly related to mass is here on earth MH--not the bloody moon. The only time weight can be used to determine mass amount,is on earth-or any other planet or moon that has a gravitational acceleration of 9.8m/sec Squared. You clearly quoted weight when referring to the astronauts and there suits on the moon--first in LB's,and then in KG's.
Weight is !!NOT!! mass MH--it is the gravitational pull between two objects<--do you understand this?. So when you stated that the astronaut and his suit had a combines !!weight!! of 290-pounds,and i corrected you,and gave you the correct !weight! of 47.85 pounds--you got your knickers in a twist. We are on the moon MH-not earth. Weight is not mass MH-weight is the gravitational pull between two objects. Please go and learn what weight is,before incorrectly saying it is mass. I will help you out some.
Quote Hyperphysics : The weight of an object is the force of gravity on the object and may be defined as the mass times the acceleration of gravity, w = mg. Since the weight is a force, its SI unit is the newton.
Quote Wiki : In science and engineering, the weight of an object is usually taken to be the force on the object due to gravity.[1][2] Weight is a vector whose magnitude (a scalar quantity), often denoted by an italic letter W, is the product of the mass m of the object and the magnitude of the local gravitational acceleration g;[3] thus: W = mg. The unit of measurement for weight is that of force, which in the International System of Units (SI)
So MH,how much dose your astronaut weigh again on the moon-in regards to your big ground thumper ?,and what is his mass?
So you see MH,now that you know that mass is not weight,can you see how you need to be correct when stating weights regarding theories based on lunar activities.
You look over what I said above and you read it as many times as are necessary until you come to the conclusion that your statement quoted immediately above is wrong.
It would be far better for you to understand the difference between mass and weight ;)
You have to understand and realize for yourself that I never talked about the weight of the astronaut because I always used kilograms , and you are not talking about weight.
???
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 when you use the term "kilograms" you are only talking about mass
:o
Mass is not weight MH-->i hope this is sinking in. The weight of an object on the moon-or any other planet or moon that dose not have a gravitational acceleration value of 9.8m/sec squared,is not the mass of that object.
You get it through your head that when you quote kilograms that it can be on Earth, on the moon, in orbit around the Earth, in orbit around the moon, or floating in space, it does not matter because kilograms are the same everywhere.
Yes-but KG's (weight) is not mass. And the weight of an object only represents it's mass here on earth,where as the weight of an object on the moon dose not represent it's mass.
Likewise, only at the very beginning of the discussion did I discuss "mass in pounds" and I never referred to it after that. I have already explained why I did that just one single time.
Ah yes-just after i corrected you ;)
Only in your head have I "posted data that could have multiple versions." You need absorb what I am saying here and understand it completely. If you can do that and then go back and reread what I have posted in this thread you will realize that I have been consistent in what I have been saying the whole time.
Yes-consistently wrong in assuming that mass is weight-which it is not. We know that weight(which is what you posted)is not an objects mass on the moon. So for your weights to be correct!!as measured on the moon!,it should be as follows
Because the 28.05-pound astronaut and the 19.8-pound space suit form a 47.85-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.
Now we see that your ground thumper that makes pole rattle,causing flags to wave,dosnt sound so good now :(.
So try and describe either the astronaut and his suit's weight,or his mass MH,as the two are not the same.
Cheers
Brad
-
Today is a good day for you MH,as i may have a video where the astronauts them self test out your moon quake theory.. Below is the video in question,where i have found an astronaut taking a couple of big jumps near the flag. As you will see,he is jumping much higher than the astronaut in the flag wavering video ;) ;). We should defiantly see some flag waving action due to the moon quake theory here--lets see. at 11:10 in the video,we get two big jumps from our astronaut near the flag.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xc61kv4aH0
Now there is something else that is very odd in the video.
I have screen shot a couple of pictures from the video.
The first one shows the astronauts on a hill close to the lunar lander. The second shot is the astronauts on a hill 4km's away,that they visited the following day ???
See anything wrong with the pictures MH,that are suppose to be of two different locations 4km's away from each other?. Video time index is in the screen grab's.
Brad
-
We are going to have this argument for some time- arnt we MH. You simply will not accept the fact that you got it wrong,and continually try to reverse the mistake onto me. Weight is not a measure of mass MH-weight is the measure of the gravitational pull between two objects--you need to understand or learn that MH-->weight is not a measure of mass-weight is a measure of the gravitational pull between two objects. The only place where weight is directly related to mass is here on earth MH--not the bloody moon. The only time weight can be used to determine mass amount,is on earth-or any other planet or moon that has a gravitational acceleration of 9.8m/sec Squared. You clearly quoted weight when referring to the astronauts and there suits on the moon--first in LB's,and then in KG's.
Weight is !!NOT!! mass MH--it is the gravitational pull between two objects<--do you understand this?. So when you stated that the astronaut and his suit had a combines !!weight!! of 290-pounds,and i corrected you,and gave you the correct !weight! of 47.85 pounds--you got your knickers in a twist. We are on the moon MH-not earth. Weight is not mass MH-weight is the gravitational pull between two objects. Please go and learn what weight is,before incorrectly saying it is mass. I will help you out some.
What is making you believe that I don't understand the difference between weight and mass?
So when you stated that the astronaut and his suit had a combines !!weight!! of 290-pounds,and i corrected you,and gave you the correct !weight! of 47.85 pounds
This is probably at least the third time I am going to tell you this: I meant "290 pounds of mass." I told you that I said that sentence in a colloquial sense and that English units are wishy-washy and can sometimes mean weight and sometimes mean mass. I could just as easily have said "a combined mass of 130 kilograms." I told you that after that I switched to metric units to avoid any possible misunderstandings.
Yes, the correct weight of the astronaut and his space suit on the moon would be 47.85 pounds. What would be more appropriate for estimating the energy in the impact on the moon of the "thumps," the mass of 130 kilograms or the weight of 47.85 pounds?
-
so what do you think about the two pictures associated with the video i posted in my last post MH?. One supposedly taken 4 km south of the other the following day :o
Now,we can clearly see that it is in fact the same location,but NASA says one is 4 km south of the other. So it is clear that we have now found lie number two(lie number one being the damage done to the astronauts hands by the gloves) from NASA. You can also cross check this with the original NASA video,and time/place index.
Now,if this was some one claiming to have an OU device,and we found just one lie-one hidden wire,battery,power source,then we would be calling hoax. Dose the same go for the moon landing's MH?, or dose the !need to believe! just make all the lie's disappear ?.
Oh,and did you see that the flag never moved when the !ground thumping! astronaut was jumping straight up and down next to the flag ;)
Brad
-
so what do you think about the two pictures associated with the video i posted in my last post MH?. One supposedly taken 4 km south of the other the following day :o
Now,we can clearly see that it is in fact the same location,but NASA says one is 4 km south of the other. So it is clear that we have now found lie number two(lie number one being the damage done to the astronauts hands by the gloves) from NASA. You can also cross check this with the original NASA video,and time/place index.
Now,if this was some one claiming to have an OU device,and we found just one lie-one hidden wire,battery,power source,then we would be calling hoax. Dose the same go for the moon landing's MH?, or dose the !need to believe! just make all the lie's disappear ?.
Oh,and did you see that the flag never moved when the !ground thumping! astronaut was jumping straight up and down next to the flag ;)
Brad
The answer is that the people in the NASA Marketing and Promotions department made an unwitting mistake, or they simply used footage that did not fit into the narrative for expediency and they were aware of it. This happens all the time in films and filmmakers do it all the time because they know that the vast majority of the audience will not spot it. Have you ever read the "goofs" section for a movie on the Internet Movie Database? So your point means nothing.
Did you read the comments on the YouTube clip about the damage to the astronaut's hands?
Oh,and did you see that the flag never moved when the !ground thumping! astronaut was jumping straight up and down next to the flag
You do this kind of foolishness all the time:
Joe is an Old Salt
Salt dissolves in water
Therefore Joe dissolves in water
Just because the flag wavered in the first shot we discussed, and presumably you are then looking at an astronaut jumping up and down in a different shot that was taken on a different moon mission, then it doesn't necessarily follow that the flag is "supposed" or "not supposed" to waver in the second shot.
It's just like you asking me for an explanation for the flag possibly wavering from the ice sublimation from the astronaut's cooling system. It can't possibly be answered because it would almost certainly require a full computer simulation.
-
The answer is that the people in the NASA Marketing and Promotions department made an unwitting mistake, or they simply used footage that did not fit into the narrative for expediency and they were aware of it. This happens all the time in films and filmmakers do it all the time because they know that the vast majority of the audience will not spot it. Have you ever read the "goofs" section for a movie on the Internet Movie Database? So your point means nothing.
Did you read the comments on the YouTube clip about the damage to the astronaut's hands?
You do this kind of foolishness all the time:
Joe is an Old Salt
Salt dissolves in water
Therefore Joe dissolves in water
Just because the flag wavered in the first shot we discussed, and presumably you are then looking at an astronaut jumping up and down in a different shot that was taken on a different moon mission, then it doesn't necessarily follow that the flag is "supposed" or "not supposed" to waver in the second shot.
It's just like you asking me for an explanation for the flag possibly wavering from the ice sublimation from the astronaut's cooling system. It can't possibly be answered because it would almost certainly require a full computer simulation.
Ah-ofcourse they made a mistake MH. In fact, every bit of evidence presented that show the possibility of the moon landings being a hoax, will all turn out to be just a mistake in your eyes MH. The astronauts claiming to have knuckles covered in blisters, but no evidence of such in the clear pictures, the flag waving away as the astronaut passes by, the same scenery in what is suppose to be two sepperate places-the list will go on. But to you-because it is something you must believe in, everything that cannot be explained, will simply be an error.
I have not seen the comment about the astronauts hands self repairing within hours, but cant wait to read what they have come up with for that one. I will check it out when I get home-should be a hoot.
Brad
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw
It's all just a conspiracy to sell DVDs and pulp pseudoscience fiction books and to pay for fake-ass lecture tours by fake-ass speakers. The fake moon landings is just another cottage industry just like the pseudoscience free energy cottage industry.
Don't let yourself get sucked in.