PDA

View Full Version : We didn't land on the Moon



BigJim
2004-May-17, 02:05 AM
I have 25 indisputable reasons why we did not land on the Moon:

1. It would have been impossible for the astroNOTS to get from the Command Module to the Conical Space Capsule, as the heat shield would obtruct them.

2. 35 years ago, I read in a textbook from 1959 that the Van Allen Belts contained deadly radiation that would kill anything in them.

3. There isn't any gravity on the Moon, so time would stop flowing and create an oxbow lake.

4. Oxygen turns into a different kind of oxygen when it leaves the Earth's atmosphere, so you couldn't breathe it.

5. It's 250 degrees on the Moon, so the astronauts would melt. This is also why NASA is covering up liquid water on the Moon, since its wicked witch-like astronauts would obviously melt from the water.

6. If I take a thumbnail image from an Apollo mission and blow it up to 5000% in Photoshop I can see alien cities.

7. There are no stars in the photographs.

8. Apollo 24 was supposed to have a color TV camera, but the studio lost power, so there was no TV. NASA's "excuse" was that the camera was "accidentally pointed at the Sun", but everyone knows there is no Sun on the Moon, otherwise the sky wouldn't appear to be black.

9. Israel is always on the top of Apollo pictures of the Earth, proving the whole thing was faked not by NASA, but by the Mossad.

10. Israel is always missing or barely visible from Apollo pictures of the Earth, proving that the whole thing was faked not by the Mossad, but by NASA.

11. There's nothing for rockets to push against in space. I tried jumping in midair but I couldn't, proving that rockets couldn't move in space.

12. The Apollo Conical Space Capsule(tm) couldn't have carried enough fuel to continuosly fire the engine for all two weeks of the mission. Bill Kaysing realized this in 1910, but he was fired from his highly technical NASA job by evil agents of Richard L. Nixon.

13. The Saturn V booster was almost 800 feet high. Since the Moon has 9 less gravities than Earth, than we should multiply the booster's height by the reciprocal of the 9 gravities, or 1/9. So why wasn't the lunar module 88.888 feet high?

14. All the Apollo pictures were faked in Photoshop. Anyone who thinks otherwise has been brainwashed with mind-expanding drugs.

15. The Moon is so bright that it can blind you in a telescope if you don't project it onto a piece of paper. The astronauts would have been blinded orbiting the Moon. In fact, I took an image of the Moon into Photoshop and turned up the contrast, and the Moon turned pure white while the rest of the sky was pure black. This proves that the Moon is a perfect reflector that reflects 100% of the light it receives from the Sun.

16. I took a picture from the Apollo 11 "landing" movie and processed it for 12 hours, and eventually I found an alien civilization there.

17. The Soviets were going to tip the world off to the fake, but they got wheat at reduced prices, so they decided not to.

18. When Nixon proposed the lunar landing program, he didn't know that Bill Kaysing had already decided it was impossible. So he decided in 1965 behind closed doors in Washington to fake the program.

19. The Saturn V actually fell apart as it launched into space. Amateur videos concealed from NASA clearly show huge parts of the Saturn V falling off of the rest of it, proving that the Saturn V was not a real rocket, but rather a hastily constructed, flimsy one.

20. Top-secret video from the Department of Top-Secret Coverups, from a camera in one of the six engines of the Saturn V that, amazingly could survive the heat of the engine with alien technology, also shows pieces of the Saturn V falling off.

21. Tom Hanks was able to fake it. I couldn't tell the difference.

22. If Apollo 13 really exploded, the astronauts would have died.

23. Someone told me once that the lunar module should have created a crater underneath it. But someone else told me it didn't. So it couldn't have landed.

24. There's no air in space to hold the dust grains on the lunar surface apart, so it should have compacted into a hard, rough, hard material.

So those are my 25 unbeatable reasons. I know you "nutters" are going to try to "debunk" my reasons, but it's not possible. I've been researching this since last Tuesday night, and I heard that a self-taught physicist found out that the astroNOTS couldn't fit through the lunar module's hatch. So there. Ha.

Master258
2004-May-17, 02:09 AM
You're right. i can't debunk it. I am now a HBer.

AGN Fuel
2004-May-17, 02:10 AM
To be so cynical at such a tender age....... :wink:


(I do like 19 & 20 - have to remember those. :lol: )

Wingnut Ninja
2004-May-17, 03:45 AM
19. The Saturn V actually fell apart as it launched into space. Amateur videos concealed from NASA clearly show huge parts of the Saturn V falling off of the rest of it, proving that the Saturn V was not a real rocket, but rather a hastily constructed, flimsy one.


I always thought that was the coolest part of a rocket launch, watching the ice- er, I mean, chunks of the spaceship falling off. Very dramatic. (which clearly means that rocket launches are faked, as nothing in real life can be dramatic)

AstroSmurf
2004-May-17, 09:16 AM
19. The Saturn V actually fell apart as it launched into space. Amateur videos concealed from NASA clearly show huge parts of the Saturn V falling off of the rest of it, proving that the Saturn V was not a real rocket, but rather a hastily constructed, flimsy one.
I always thought that was the coolest part of a rocket launch, watching the ice- er, I mean, chunks of the spaceship falling off. Very dramatic. (which clearly means that rocket launches are faked, as nothing in real life can be dramatic)
There's no water in space, so how can there be ice?????

Anyway, he's obviously talking about that the whole rocket came apart in space - I saw it myself on the Apollo 13 documentary, big honking chunks just breaking off and falling back to the Earth, rockets, fins the whole shebang.

Oh, and make that the "Van Halen" belts :lol:

kucharek
2004-May-17, 09:23 AM
23. Someone told me once that the lunar module should have created a crater underneath it. But someone else told me it didn't. So it couldn't have landed.
All lunar modules except Snoopy created craters. On their second "landing" attempt... ;-)

ABTN (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-29_LM_Lunar_Impact.htm) gives their estimated diameters as some 30 feet.

And we all know that Aquarius didn't produce a crater. Just a big hole in the water. ;-)

Harald

JMV
2004-May-17, 09:50 AM
I loved #19! =D> Best one I've heard.
And like AstroSmurf suggested #2 should have said "Van Halen Belts".

Glom
2004-May-17, 10:02 AM
21. Tom Hanks was able to fake it. I couldn't tell the difference.

Sums up conspiracist mentality. If they don't know about it, it doesn't exist. If they don't understand it, it's inexplicable.

Marcus Allen made a similar comment about people not knowing the difference between training footage and real footage. Maybe he couldn't tell the difference, but we can.

die Nullte
2004-May-17, 05:45 PM
So he decided in 1965 behind closed doors in Washington to fake the program.

Nixon wasn't president in 1965.

TaeKwonDan
2004-May-17, 07:01 PM
So he decided in 1965 behind closed doors in Washington to fake the program.

Nixon wasn't president in 1965.

That's just what they want you to think.

Parrothead
2004-May-17, 07:10 PM
I didn't realize there were so many Apollo missions 24??? and I had no idea Kaysing was so old (see #12). :wink:

BigJim
2004-May-17, 07:12 PM
I Googled "apollo" and looked through the results for five minutes, disproving lifetimes of research on Apollo. Here are some more amazing FACTS that I have uncovered. All 16 of them.

1. It would have been impossible for the astronauts to get from the Command Module to the Conical Space Capsule, as the heat shield would obstruct them.

2. My Uncle Betty says that his aunt's cousin's wife's roomate's former acquiantance said that he didn't think we landed on the Moon.

4. On the Moon, there's no air to support combustion. Therefore, the lunar rover couldn't go.

3. There's no gas on the Moon, so the astronauts would have had no way to refuel the rover.

5. It would have been impossible for the astronauts to get from the Command Module to the Conical Space Capsule, as the heat shield would obstruct them.

6. Once I weighted a feather and dropped it and it dropped just as fast as a hammer, proving that the experiment from Apollo 22 was faked.

7. They could do it in Capricorn One.

8. Nixon had Kennedy shot by Castro because he knew that we couldn't land on the Moon. Nixon was elected president the next day.

9. On Apollo 9 the rocket was hit by lightning 8 times. But everyone knows that thunder is faster than lightning, so the astronauts would have heard thunder before the lightning hit.

10. It would have been impossible for the astroNOTS to get from the Command Module to the Conical Space Capsule, as the heat shield would obstruct them.

11. On Apollo 10, the booster "POGO"ed. But the pogo stick was invented in 1919, so they should have been able to solve this problem.

12. Neil Armstrong didn't fly all the missions.

13. I heard on a TV show that rendezvous in orbit is hard. So they couldn't have done it, unless they climbed up to the command module from the rope that was hanging out of it.

14. It would have been impossible for the astroNOTS to get from the Command Module to the Conical Space Capsule, as the heat shield would obstruct them.

15. Brad Guth said something about Venus.

As for your attempts to "debunk" me:


Nixon wasn't president in 1965.

Yes he was. Nixon was a freemason.


Marcus Allen made a similar comment about people not knowing the difference between training footage and real footage. Maybe he couldn't tell the difference, but we can.

But I can't. You nutters don't have open minds. How long will it take you to understand?

Oh, by the way, I have a great deal for you. I'm selling convecton ovens. Not only that, but I'm selling boxes of convection. That way, in case your convection oven runs out of convection, you can just pour in some more and it will keep convecting for you. I also carry a convection guage to tell you how much convection is left in your oven. Buy two convection ovens, get one antigrav free.

die Nullte
2004-May-17, 07:21 PM
Nixon wasn't president in 1965.

Yes he was. Nixon was a freemason.

Huh? Even Guth or Min might hesitate before offering this one.

Glom
2004-May-17, 07:54 PM
Huh? Even Guth or Min might hesitate before offering this one.

You do know he's joking, right?

die Nullte
2004-May-17, 08:35 PM
You do know he's joking, right?

Yes!

Rue
2004-May-18, 03:18 PM
17. The Soviets were going to tip the world off to the fake, but they got wheat at reduced prices, so they decided not to.

And the Australians were paid off in shrimp?

kucharek
2004-May-18, 03:24 PM
17. The Soviets were going to tip the world off to the fake, but they got wheat at reduced prices, so they decided not to.

And the Australians were paid off in shrimp?

No, as latter they did with Skylab wreckage, they asked for a higher beef quota... ;-)

Harald

Master258
2004-May-18, 04:32 PM
17. The Soviets were going to tip the world off to the fake, but they got wheat at reduced prices, so they decided not to.

Who doesn't want low priced wheat?

BigJim
2004-May-18, 05:11 PM
17. The Soviets were going to tip the world off to the fake, but they got wheat at reduced prices, so they decided not to.

And the Australians were paid off in shrimp?

No, as latter they did with Skylab wreckage, they asked for a higher beef quota... ;-)

Harald

We made a deal with the Australians in which we offered to stop killing Canadian kangaroos by the thousands in order for them to help us fake the moon landings. They agreed.

Lurker
2004-May-18, 07:59 PM
1. It would have been impossible for the astroNOTS to get from the Command Module to the Conical Space Capsule, as the heat shield would obtruct them.
This one has always confused me... what are they talking about?? :o

JayUtah
2004-May-18, 08:17 PM
This is one of the charges made by the author of the NASAScam web site. He's obviously unaware of even the most basic facts about Apollo, confusing the various modules. Apparently he believes the astronauts were meant to pass between the conical command module and the cylindrical (unmanned) service module.

Lurker
2004-May-18, 09:15 PM
This is one of the charges made by the author of the NASAScam web site. He's obviously unaware of even the most basic facts about Apollo, confusing the various modules. Apparently he believes the astronauts were meant to pass between the conical command module and the cylindrical (unmanned) service module.
Oh... well in that case... I guess we didn't go to the moon after all... 8)

calliarcale
2004-May-18, 09:26 PM
This is one of the charges made by the author of the NASAScam web site. He's obviously unaware of even the most basic facts about Apollo, confusing the various modules. Apparently he believes the astronauts were meant to pass between the conical command module and the cylindrical (unmanned) service module.
Oh... well in that case... I guess we didn't go to the moon after all... 8)

I've seen it elsewhere too, in a few variants, sometimes by the same HBer.

I've seen it claimed that they had to pass through the heatshield because the HBer thinks that the Service Module was habitable. Perhaps this arises from confusion with Soyuz, though frankly, I wouldn't give them that much credit. Somebody that ignorant of Apollo is unlikely to even know what a Soyuz looks like from the outside.

I've also seen it claimed that they must've had to climb back into the LM because that's the way they were stacked in the Saturn V. This ignores the flip-around maneuver, of course.

And I think it was on the NASAscam site where they claimed that they had to have gone through the heat shield (which they also said was impossible) because they couldn't possibly have gone through the top of the CM, because the parachutes were in the way. (This would also apply to Soyuz.)

Sidenote: a Soviet mission successfully tested the concept of a hatch in a heatshield. The hatch held up fine, with the heat of reentry simply fusing it shut as expected. The intention was to use this in the proposed Almaz-VA (Almaz being an orbiting lab and VA being a crew return vehicle; they'd be launched together, a la the USAF MOL concept, with the crew already on board. Unlike MOL, the crew would open a hatch in the VA spacecraft's heatshield to enter the orbiting lab. With MOL, either an inflatable passageway or a spacewalk was required to pass from the Gemini spacecraft to the lab.)

Bob B.
2004-May-18, 09:30 PM
Marcus Allen made a similar comment about people not knowing the difference between training footage and real footage.
The football player?

kucharek
2004-May-18, 09:52 PM
Sidenote: a Soviet mission successfully tested the concept of a hatch in a heatshield. The hatch held up fine, with the heat of reentry simply fusing it shut as expected. The intention was to use this in the proposed Almaz-VA (Almaz being an orbiting lab and VA being a crew return vehicle; they'd be launched together, a la the USAF MOL concept, with the crew already on board. Unlike MOL, the crew would open a hatch in the VA spacecraft's heatshield to enter the orbiting lab. With MOL, either an inflatable passageway or a spacewalk was required to pass from the Gemini spacecraft to the lab.)

AFAIK, the US also tested this. IIRC, it was the unmanned Gemini 2 capsule that just had made a suborbital test flight, that was modified with a heatshield with a hatch and flown again, making it the first reused spacecraft in history. I'll look for some link about this.

Harald

PS: http://whizzospace.com/museum/museum3.htm (with photo of hatch in heatshield)

Glom
2004-May-19, 08:46 AM
The football player?

Editor of Nexus magazine and friend of David Percy.


Somebody that ignorant of Apollo is unlikely to even know what a Soyuz looks like from the outside.

If Nasascam weren't so amusing, it would be very angering to be criticised in such an arrogant and insulting manner when his knowledge of Apollo sucks so badly. If you can't tell the difference between the CM and the SM, you have no business coming to judgements about anything related to Apollo.

Of course, on the other hand, he is a disgrace to HBers and so discredits them. (as if they needed any help)

Paul Beardsley
2004-May-19, 10:17 PM
The fliparound manouver is also proof that the moon landings were faked.

If I'm driving down the road in my car, and I suddenly do a u-turn, I'm heading back the way I came! It's simple physics, Bob.

Not that I drive much these days. I foolishly welded my car doors shut, so I can't get into my car without passing through the windshield.

TaeKwonDan
2004-May-20, 04:41 AM
You need to add the step where you tell anybody that logically and scientifically dissects your evidence that they're "not opening their eyes" or "engaging their brain." [-(

genebujold
2004-May-20, 08:12 AM
I also did a Google search for critically super-scientific information on the Apollo program, and uncovered the following utterly indisputable facts. Only I used two windows so my search took only 2.5 minutes as opposed to BigJim's 5:

1. We never landed on the moon because Tony's mom said "there's an [adjective omitted] man down there at the water cooler who says NASA never landed on the Moon. Everyone was talking about it ... I just didn't know what to say!"

2. The stars did show up in the original "lunar" photographs taken right here on Earth, but were later removed by the NSA using Adobe Photoshop's original beta so no one could use celestial navigation to tell they weren't where they said they were.

3. The rocket couldn't have flown because as everyone knows, tall things tend to tip over, and the moment the tower released it the rocket would have fallen on it's side. That's why the space shuttle is so big and fat - it's more stable.

4. The space race was actully a plot hatched by accountants to funnel massive amounts of dollars away from the U.S. government. It worked, too. Everyone fell for it, including the engineers, mission support specialists, etc. The astronauts were bought off, as they'd be the only eyewitnesses.

5. If Saturn IV could have made it to the moon and back, the space shuttle, with it's vastly newer technology, would be able to make to Mars and back. It can't, so Saturn IV didn't.

6. The technology was so bad back then they couldn't even figure out how to put microphones in the helmets. That's why they used gold foil to cover the face, as the pics and movies are of stunt doubles. The real astronauts were off to the side recording their voices into microphones. Big ones.

7. As you can see here, there's a cat in the photo. http://www.geocities.com/nasascam/APOLLOSCAM/

Cats can't live on the moon. If they faked the photo, they would have had to fake the cat, too, as cats hate cameras.

8. NASA and the NSA are really the same organization, and the A really stands for American.

9. The NSA is a global organization, not just an American one.

10. Four years before they were supposed to land on the moon, the price of wheat in China went through the roof, which is why we agreed to sell wheat to Russia, because they couldn't afford to buy it from their neighbors anymore. The Russians lied, and re-sold the wheat to China, using the money to pay for their own space race.

11. Russian rockets don't fall over because they're wider at the bottom.

12. Since you can fake a picture of a cat on the moon, you can fake a picture of a man on the moon, and faking pictures is a lot cheaper, so it stands to reason the cheapest way to win the space race is just to fake it.

Ok, BigJim - you win. Yours had me in stiches! =D>

PhantomWolf
2004-May-20, 11:18 AM
I have to ask, is the nasascam site serious? It seemed to be, well until they started going on about dogs and then posting a cat on the moon and the obviously faked double astronaut photo.

Extravoice
2004-May-20, 12:14 PM
12. The Apollo Conical Space Capsule(tm) couldn't have carried enough fuel to continuosly fire the engine for all two weeks of the mission. Bill Kaysing realized this in 1910, but he was fired from his highly technical NASA job by evil agents of Richard L. Nixon.
.

Richard M. Nixon's father?

----------
One ringy-dingy, two ringy-dingys....Um yes, Mr. Milhous?

gooodcop
2004-May-20, 12:34 PM
HI
I have 3 points to question after reading your debunk of the moon hoax program.

I believe firstly, that television is used as a weapon to create mistrust, which is a form of terrorism. However, I also believe that criminal things of this type go on, and that if this moon visit was a hoax, it would have been more revolving around stealing the FUNDING from the taxpayers in an explicable, accountable manner - moon project, etc.

My points for clarification are:

How could film be developed after being subjected to radiation on the surface of the moon? Radiation wipes out film.

Second; if dust reflects light straight back to its source on the moon, creating no shadows, how the heck do we see the crater shadows that we see from earth? That doesnt sound right.

gooodcop
2004-May-20, 12:52 PM
Sidenote: a Soviet mission successfully tested the concept of a hatch in a heatshield. The hatch held up fine, with the heat of reentry simply fusing it shut as expected.

Why then didnt the heat of exiting our atmosphere fuse it shut the first time, only the re-entry?

I am leaving to find a better site. This site seems full of personal attack and child mentality instead of learned beings able to debunk peacefully.
Is it a debunking forum, or a friends of the author forum only? One side only? How narrow.

I'd like to hear a mature comment debunking how the film was able to be developed, and not ruined by radiation on the moon -- and how we see shadowed craters, when "we all know" the moon dust nixes out shadows. If possible, that is.

Astronot
2004-May-20, 01:34 PM
Well I was about to say welcome to the board, but if your leaving then Iíll leave it at thanks for dropping by.

TaeKwonDan
2004-May-20, 01:49 PM
I'm not qualified to answer your questions. Folks who are should be along at some point to answer them. If you're willing to stick around, I'm sure you will receive well thought out answers to your questions.

My uneducated and nonresearched answer to the film question, is that they simply protected the film from radiation exposure. I'm willing to bet it's as simple as that.

As a side note, it's kind of weak to come in post questions and then 20 minutes later decry the site and ride off into the sunset. That's not exceedingly scientific either.

Daryl71
2004-May-20, 02:01 PM
The Apollo Command Module was 13 feet wide. The parachutes were 80 feet wide. Therefore, Apollo was a fake!

JMV
2004-May-20, 02:05 PM
Why then didnt the heat of exiting our atmosphere fuse it shut the first time, only the re-entry?
What heat? Why do you believe there's lots of heat during ascent and what makes you think that the heatsheald is exposed to this heat you're talking about?


I am leaving to find a better site.
By better site you mean a site that conforms with your beliefs?

This site seems full of personal attack and child mentality instead of learned beings able to debunk peacefully.
This particular thread may have given that impression, but this thread is only a joke, comical relief. Don't take it so seriously. We are fully capable of having serious and peaceful discussions about the moon hoax.

One side only? How narrow.
This forum is inhabited mainly by debunkers. We, debunkers, don't have any obligation to distribute HB (Hoax Believer) mentality here, it's HBs' job. But since you're here, you go ahead and present your evidence and we'll discuss it.

I'd like to hear a mature comment debunking how the film was able to be developed, and not ruined by radiation on the moon
There are other people here who know much more about radiation, film sensitivy to radiation and photo developement than I do, so I'll leave it to them.

Second; if dust reflects light straight back to its source on the moon, creating no shadows, how the heck do we see the crater shadows that we see from earth? That doesnt sound right.
No one's claiming that there are no shadows on the moon, only that shaded sides of objects, which are roughly perpendicular to the surface of the moon (like standing astronaut or the LM), shouldn't be pitch black as some hoax believers want you to believe.

That "Heiligenschein phenomenon and indirected lighting reflected from the surface of the moon" -argument doesn't have much to do with crater shadows, because craters are mostly shallow and thus there's no lighted surface with enough view factor to them, that means that the lighted surface can't reflect light on the crater shadows in the same way as on the astronauts or on the LM.

kucharek
2004-May-20, 02:36 PM
The Apollo Command Module was 13 feet wide. The parachutes were 80 feet wide. Therefore, Apollo was a fake!
*LOL* That's a good one!

Harald

genebujold
2004-May-20, 03:32 PM
HI
I have 3 points to question after reading your debunk of the moon hoax program.

I believe firstly, that television is used as a weapon to create mistrust, which is a form of terrorism. However, I also believe that criminal things of this type go on, and that if this moon visit was a hoax, it would have been more revolving around stealing the FUNDING from the taxpayers in an explicable, accountable manner - moon project, etc.

My points for clarification are:

How could film be developed after being subjected to radiation on the surface of the moon? Radiation wipes out film.

Second; if dust reflects light straight back to its source on the moon, creating no shadows, how the heck do we see the crater shadows that we see from earth? That doesnt sound right.

Good questions!

The average radiation received on the moon was 6 times the amount per unit of time as we receive here on Earth. If film can last years before developing on Earth, then it can last months before developing on the Moon. Finally, the film was sealed in radiation-resistant bags before and after exposure.

Dust does not reflect light straight back to it's source. If that were true, you'd only be able to see a full moon, when the sun was directly behind us. Yet the moon is just as bright at half moon, when the sun is at 90 degree angles to us, so... you do the math!

genebujold
2004-May-20, 03:37 PM
Sidenote: a Soviet mission successfully tested the concept of a hatch in a heatshield. The hatch held up fine, with the heat of reentry simply fusing it shut as expected.

Why then didnt the heat of exiting our atmosphere fuse it shut the first time, only the re-entry?

Happens to deal with what velocity at what altitude. You know, rocket science.


I am leaving to find a better site. This site seems full of personal attack and child mentality instead of learned beings able to debunk peacefully.
Is it a debunking forum, or a friends of the author forum only? One side only? How narrow.

I'd like to hear a mature comment debunking how the film was able to be developed, and not ruined by radiation on the moon -- and how we see shadowed craters, when "we all know" the moon dust nixes out shadows. If possible, that is.

Please see my previous post. Then, I hope you stay. My undergrad is in aeronautical engineering, so I feel I have something worthwhile to add, perhaps some things you might find that answers your questions, like the ones you posted above.

If not, by all means go where your heart leads you.

Irishman
2004-May-20, 03:43 PM
I am leaving to find a better site. This site seems full of personal attack and child mentality instead of learned beings able to debunk peacefully.

I'm sorry you got that impression. This site is very solid on detailed rebuttals of the moon hoax claim. The technical knowledge here is staggering. However, after watching patterns and seeing certain behavior repeating and sites that remain unchanged even after detailed exchanges with their owners providing the answers to their questions, it can get a little frustrating dealing with stupidity. Sometimes the folks here like to blow off steam. This thread is a joke along those lines.



I'd like to hear a mature comment debunking how the film was able to be developed, and not ruined by radiation on the moon -- and how we see shadowed craters, when "we all know" the moon dust nixes out shadows. If possible, that is.

First of all, "radiation on the moon" is a misleading characterization. It's not like the moon is hot like a nuclear reactor, for instance. Frankly, "radiation" is a boogaboo - a word that most people don't comprehend the vagaries of. For instance, radiation can be applied to heat distribution in your home - if you have a radiator. Radiation can be applied to the light streaming down from the sun, or from your incandescent or fluorescent light bulbs. So to speak of radiation as if it is one single thing is to miss the subtlety of the technical term.

So what is the radiation of the space and lunar environment, that is applicable to exposing blank film? First you should read the Radiation Primer from Clavius.

http://www.clavius.org/envradintro.html


Radiation is a hard-working word in physics. It describes several diverse natural processes and their effects. As used in common speech, it means what physicists call "ionizing radiation", or that which can produce detrimental effects in materials and organic tissue. Ionization is the process of removing electrons from atoms, and when this occurs in biological tissues it disrupts the delicate chemical and physical processes that sustain life.

[snip]

We consider two broad categories of ionizing radiation: that caused by electromagnetic rays, and that caused by high-energy charged particles.

[snip]

Generally anything above the visible spectrum is considered ionizing radiation and thus harmful to some degree. Ultraviolet radiation from the sun is what sometimes causes skin cancer. X-rays and gamma rays are produced by nuclear reactions -- atomic bombs, and to a much lesser degree, nuclear reactors.

[snip]

In general, the shorter the EM wavelength, the thicker and denser the shield material must be. Ultraviolet (UV) can be blocked simply by a sufficiently opaque sheet of plastic. We are all familiar with tinted sunglasses that promise to block some 97% of solar UV rays. Not much additional protection is required in space. X-rays and gamma rays are another matter. Where intense x-rays and gamma rays occur, it requires several inches or centimeters of lead and/or concrete to provide adequate shielding.

[snip]

The best materials to shield against beta particles have lots of hydrogen atoms in them. Hydrogen atoms are light, and so absorb the particles without giving off x-rays. Plain old water works very well. In fact, 4 inches (10 centimeters) of water will block almost all background beta particles. But water is impractical for shielding in space, so high-density polyethylene (HPDE, chemical formula CH2CH2...) is frequently used instead. This also effectively blocks protons.


Lots more there, but let's move on to film and cameras.

Let me ask you a question: do you think the engineers and scientists working on a lunar mission would not be bright enough to realize the film might be at risk to radiation? Think about it.

The answer is that the radiation they could protect against they did. As shown above, most of the ionizing radiation was prevented by keeping the film in magazines, just like on Earth you keep film in a roll, often in a plastic container. The stuff that couldn't be protected against was cosmic rays - cosmic rays hit us here on Earth. Those they just let hit, which exposed some small pinpoints on the film. But the flux of cosmic rays, or amount, was still reasonably low.

What about the crater shadows question? It appears you have misunderstood the arguments being presented.


Second; if dust reflects light straight back to its source on the moon, creating no shadows, how the heck do we see the crater shadows that we see from earth? That doesnt sound right.

From Earth, we don't really see a lot of crater shadows. The big black zones on the Moon that are visible are not shadows, they are Mare. They are dark basalt rock from lava from when the Moon's core was molten.

How about the shadows in the lunar pictures? The argument presented by the moon hoax proponents is that objects in shadow should be pitch black, because there are no light sources and no atmosphere to reflect the light. This is a complete misunderstanding about the light scattering effect of the atmosphere. Most light is not, in fact, reflected by atmosphere. Just look at your standard flashlight at night or in a dark room, or headlights on a car. If air reflected the light much, you'd never be able to see the road signs because the light wouldn't get there and back. Note that sight is very dependent upon light reaching your eyes. When you see an object, what you are really seeing is light entering your eye that bounced off that object.

When scientists talk about the lack of atmosphere on the moon preventing light scattering, they are talking about why the sky looks black in daylight, versus blue on Earth. When they talk about the shadows should have sharp contrasts, they mean in relation to Earth shadows. The light scattered in the upper atmosphere reflects light back to Earth in a diffuse pattern. That's why an overcast day there are no strong shadows - the light is coming from all over they sky at equal intensity. On a sunny day, there is a bright, concentrated light source (the Sun) and a more dim, diffuse source (the sky). Thus we see shadows, but they fade around the edges.

On the moon, there is no diffuse light source from the sky. Thus the shadows will be dark, with sharp edges.

But what about the reflected light argument? Okay, the Hoax Proponents have declared that since shadows should be sharp, then anything in a shadow should be pitch black. They have decided that we shouldn't be able to see the shadowed side of the LMs or the astronauts. They seem to think the only thing that could reflect light is the atmosphere, which isn't present. But that's rediculous. Everything reflects light. Rocks, trees, cars, roads, tables, chairs, walls - if it's not completely transparent, it's reflecting light. That's how you see the object. So on the moon, there are a lot of objects to reflect light - rocks, dirt, astronauts, LMs.

Okay, so what is it we are saying? Craters on the moon are holes. They are close to the surface - actually, they are the surface, but the surface has contours just like any natural dirt surface. Contours mean low spots and high spots. The shadows are there because the Apollo landings took place with the sun fairly low in the lunar sky. This means long shadows like evening on Earth. Shadows will be long with sharp edges. That does not mean no light gets into the shadows, but the light has to be reflected off something. In a crater that might be the far crater wall. If the surface is relatively level, then objects low to the surface will not have much light scattered off the dirt around them back onto their shadows. However, objects such as the LM stick up higher into the sky. More light can be reflected off surroundings and back onto their sides. Thus they show up more easily than the sides of small rocks.

So the answer is "shadows are created, but reflected light helps fill in and brighten objects in shadows."

But I said when we look at the moon from Earth we don't see shadows in craters. Yes, because when we look at the moon, there are two factors.

1. The moon is so far away, the craters are too small to make out. With a telescope you can see some really big craters.

2. The angle of the sun to the lunar surface as seen from Earth is typically high. The Sun is basically directly above the Moon. During a full moon, our vantage point is also basically directly above the surface, looking down at "noon". Since the sun is high in the sky (noon), the shadows are short if present at all. During a crescent faze, we are looking at the sides of the moon. If you use a telescope you can probably see some shadows on craters near the terminator line. Again, the sun angle is low to that region of the moon, more like evening on Earth. Ergo, shadows are present.

I hope this has helped.

Irishman
2004-May-20, 03:56 PM
Forgot to add:



Sidenote: a Soviet mission successfully tested the concept of a hatch in a heatshield. The hatch held up fine, with the heat of reentry simply fusing it shut as expected.

Why then didnt the heat of exiting our atmosphere fuse it shut the first time, only the re-entry?

1. The heatshield is not exposed during launch, only on reentry.

2. The heatshield is not required on launch, only reentry. Thus, point 1.

Why? When launching, the rocket is starting from rest relative to the surface. It has to accelerate to get to the velocity that will allow it to orbit. This acceleration is not instantaneous - the push of the rocket blast is the speeding up of the rocket. It gets pushed all the way to orbit. The really high velocities aren't encountered until the spacecraft is above most of the atmosphere. Thus the friction with the atmosphere, while significant, is not high enough to create the heating that reentry creates.

Reentry has a very fast moving object slamming into a rapidly thickening atmosphere. That is a much greater velocity difference, ergo the substantial heating far greater than launch. Thus the need for a heat shield.

Glom
2004-May-20, 04:00 PM
I believe firstly, that television is used as a weapon to create mistrust, which is a form of terrorism.

I saw the Greens' party political broadcast for the local and European elections. I agree with you.


However, I also believe that criminal things of this type go on, and that if this moon visit was a hoax, it would have been more revolving around stealing the FUNDING from the taxpayers in an explicable, accountable manner - moon project, etc.

How does that work exactly? You've still got to build the hardware and make it look like you're doing the job. Plus you've got to keep everyone silent and doing the fakey. In the end, it will turn out to be far more expensive than doing it for real. So who's going to end up with a load of spare cash in their pockets?


How could film be developed after being subjected to radiation on the surface of the moon? Radiation wipes out film.

Radiation does wipe out film. But only in sufficient quantities. What makes you think there was sufficient radiation exposure to cause that?


Second; if dust reflects light straight back to its source on the moon, creating no shadows, how the heck do we see the crater shadows that we see from earth? That doesnt sound right.

Straw man. It doesn't eliminate shadows. The effects of zero phase and heliegenschein cause light to be back scattered more than in any other direction, which is good for providing fill light in the shadows, but it doesn't do it enough to eliminate the shadows. Shadows are still prominent. It's just that they have a bit of fill lighting so objects in receive some illumination.


Why then didnt the heat of exiting our atmosphere fuse it shut the first time, only the re-entry?

Two reasons. First off, aerodynamic heating on the way up is significantly less than heating on the way down. That's deliberate. The launch takes the quickest way out of the densest parts of the atmosphere and does it with a more aerodynamically efficient aspect to make it cheaper (drag just adds to fuel costs). The reentry takes a shallow way in and does it in a way to increase drag to use the atmosphere to bleed off the energy of orbit. In short, the launch is designed to minimise energy loss to drag as much as possible, while reentry is designed to maximise it (that's a simplistic way of putting it, the mechanics of reentry are very complicated in actuality).

Second, the hatch of the reentry module isn't exposed on launch.


I am leaving to find a better site. This site seems full of personal attack and child mentality instead of learned beings able to debunk peacefully.
Is it a debunking forum, or a friends of the author forum only? One side only? How narrow.

How can you be leaving? You asked us some questions. Surely you should stay to check out the answers. Admittedly, this thread doesn't convey an enormous amount of maturity, but if you read further, you'll find that we have discussed things in depth with conspiracists in a proper and professional manner. It's just that after dealing with sites like Nasascam and Cosmic Conspiracies, we can't help but laugh. BigJim's tongue-in-cheek arguments are caricatures of certain conspiracist arguments, but they are consistent with some of the more inane stuff we have actually heard.

If you want to discuss the Apollohoax in a professional manner, then you'll find we are perfectly capable of doing that.


I'd like to hear a mature comment debunking how the film was able to be developed, and not ruined by radiation on the moon -- and how we see shadowed craters, when "we all know" the moon dust nixes out shadows. If possible, that is.

Well if you stick around a while, you'll find you'll receive just that. And Jay hasn't even arrived yet.

JayUtah
2004-May-20, 04:07 PM
I believe firstly, that television is used as a weapon to create mistrust, which is a form of terrorism.

I agree, except I wouldn't necessarily go as far as to call it terrorism. Creating uncertainty and doubt about the products of one's competitor is just capitalism. Shady capitalism, but certainly not terrorism.

...[the moon hoax] would have been more revolving around stealing the FUNDING from the taxpayers in an explicable, accountable manner - moon project, etc.

Except if you're going to steal money from the taxpayers, why would you then turn around and spend it creating jobs for them and generally expanding the standard of American industry? We can see where Apollo money was spent. There's this notion of greedy contractors gobbling up vast amounts of money. The amount of money wasn't that vast, and the contractors used it to hire people to do work for them.

How could film be developed after being subjected to radiation on the surface of the moon? Radiation wipes out film.

Yes, it does. However, how do you know there was radiation on the surface of the moon? The conspiracy theorists who tell you there was don't know anything about radiation. I know because I've asked them. The type of radiation found sporadically in cislunar space -- charged particles -- isn't the same kind of radiation that easily fogs film.

Second; if dust reflects light straight back to its source on the moon, creating no shadows, how the heck do we see the crater shadows that we see from earth? That doesnt sound right.

First, the reflection is preferential. Not all the light is reflected back toward the source.

Second, we see contour on the moon because we don't always look in the same direction as the light source. As you can see in the photographs, the heiligenschein phenomenon is localized, as its underlying cause suggests it should be.

You only fail to see shadows when you are in the right position not to see shadows. You aren't always in the right position.

JayUtah
2004-May-20, 04:11 PM
Why then didnt the heat of exiting our atmosphere fuse it shut the first time, only the re-entry?

Because it wasn't yet moving fast enough. There is aerodynamic heating on the ascent, to be sure, but it's not nearly as bad as re-entry. As has been said, heating depends on altitude (i.e., density) and speed. If you plot speed versus altitude for ascent and descent, you'll see the difference.

This site seems full of personal attack and child mentality...

Sorry if you've been offended.

Extravoice
2004-May-20, 06:00 PM
I am leaving to find a better site.

Leaves when his questions aren't answered within 18 minutes. <sigh>
Another victim of the "MTV generation?"

----
Patience is a virtue
Find it if you can
Seldom in a woman
Never in a man

gooodcop
2004-May-20, 11:44 PM
Hey....

I must admit you had me going. Sorry, but Im not going!

How do YOU know theres NOT radiation on the moon, when we've never been there? Balderdash. Question for a question is the hallmark of your breed. Its called lying.

But, I suppose a website will now be drummed up, and few letters typed, for you to discover about this question. Special radioactive film, right? I can see it now. Excellent birds.

Re your moon dust idea, how very clever but loopholed. We cannot see a halo effect comparable to the "moon phenomenon" you just made up. Pretty good tho and Im sure it would fool someone who trusts you and has no brain.

We have atmosphere. Wet grass and cold air do not simulate the moon. The atmosphere isnt taken away on those days. According to you, that "huge white lit sky" would be nixing out all shadows on the ground too, on these cold, dewy mornings. That isnt so.

Good try tho.

As for jobs, you call giving friends and family nasa positions and rocket building positions not theft? Huh. I do. Nice excuse, but not flying with me.

Einstein was not a plagiarist, thats peanuts. Einstein was a ** artist and master of propaganda. Yah, uhuh, 2 hours of Kuiper Belt rads is okey dokey? Sure it is. Get real.

Stick to comedy. Aping is what your best at, being an ape. I can picture your chimp grin right now, with lots of big fat teeth. Maybe a dentist can shave them down for you, like your nose. Bye bye.

jt-3d
2004-May-20, 11:49 PM
I predict a long and fruitful stay for you on this board.

JayUtah
2004-May-20, 11:58 PM
How do YOU know theres NOT radiation on the moon, when we've never been there? Balderdash.

You're the one claiming radiation would have harmed the Apollo film. That's based on the premise that there is radiation, so it's up to you to determine that there is, in amounts that would harm film. If I claimed that Moon Pixies would have stolen the Apollo film, it would be up to me to prove the existence of Moon Pixies. You don't get to assume the presence of strong radiation any more than I get to assume the existence of Moon Pixies.

The radiation environment one meter above the lunar surface is basically the same (aside from some minor secondary radiation) as it is 1,000 meters above it, and as it is 100,000 meters above it. Unmanned spacecraft such as Surveyors told us the precise conditions on the lunar surface, and at all points in between, prior to sending manned spacecraft. So your contention that "we've never been there" is wrong in that respect.

Question for a question is the hallmark of your breed. Its called lying.

Do you have any evidence that I am lying?

We cannot see a halo effect comparable to the "moon phenomenon" you just made up.

http://www.clavius.org/a11rear.html

Pretty good tho and Im sure it would fool someone who trusts you and has no brain.

I don't ask people to trust me. I show them how they can demonstrate for themselves the things I talk about.

Wet grass and cold air do not simulate the moon.

If you understand why wet grass and cold air produce heiligenschein (although cold air has nothing to do with it), you understand why lunar soil produces heiligenschein. We can describe it in the theoretical optical sense. We can confirm those descriptions with observations.

As for jobs, you call giving friends and family nasa positions and rocket building positions not theft? Huh. I do.

I would too, if that's what had happened. But you don't have any evidence that this happened.

Stick to comedy. Aping is what your best at, being an ape. [rest of personal attack omitted]

Do you have any arguments that don't involve calling me names? Even if you do, you probably won't have the opportunity to post them since I'm fairly sure you'll be banned from here forthwith.

gooodcop
2004-May-21, 12:08 AM
1. The moon is so far away, the craters are too small to make out. With a telescope you can see some really big craters

Gee, I see them fine with my naked eyes. You must be myopic.

EVERYTHING reflects light. So does it on earth, and it doesnt change shadows enough to need a special theory to excuse it.

Re breaking the atmosphere on departure, we go FASTER to escape gravity and SLOWER to re-enter. Who do you think your fooling?

PS, thanks for the contures definition. I never heard that word before. ::::::::))))))))) I feel SO enlightened now, everything's cool and hunky dory. You are so so nice to spend all this time explaining why the crime isnt so, whats in it for ya? He who complaineth the most has the most to hideth, as the Tale of Two Brothers in heiro says, not.

Bob B.
2004-May-21, 12:17 AM
Don't feed the troll (i.e. goodcop).

JayUtah
2004-May-21, 12:18 AM
EVERYTHING reflects light. So does it on earth, and it doesnt change shadows enough to need a special theory to excuse it.

There is no special theory; the same rules apply on Earth. However, other conditions on Earth -- not found on the moon -- soften the contrast between light and shadow so the effect is not as prominent. You are simply expressing disbelief. Do you have any scientific insight into why we're wrong and you're right?

Re breaking the atmosphere on departure, we go FASTER to escape gravity and SLOWER to re-enter. Who do you think your fooling?

So you dispute all rocketry? Why don't Russian or Chinese rockets burn up on the ascent?

AGN Fuel
2004-May-21, 01:04 AM
Gee, I see them fine with my naked eyes. You must be myopic.

The markings that you can see on the moon with the naked eye are called 'Mare'. They are large impact basins, where molten material welled up to the surface and cooled. They are a different colour owing to the basalt of which they are composed - not because they are in shadow.


EVERYTHING reflects light. So does it on earth, and it doesnt change shadows enough to need a special theory to excuse it.

Excuse what? Imagine you are in a room at night with the light off, but the door open. Someone in the adjoining room turns the light in that room on. Even though your room has no direct line of sight to the light, your room will brighten considerably. Why? Reflected light.

The Hoax Believers would have you believe that shadows on the moon should receive no reflected light. This is patently ludicrous - if this were so, it would mean that someone standing in a shadow could not see the bright sunlit surface of the moon only a few metres away!



Re breaking the atmosphere on departure, we go FASTER to escape gravity and SLOWER to re-enter. Who do you think your fooling?

Before throwing out the insults, you should be aware that the people you are insulting work with rocket and spacecraft technology for a living. Do you? Your reference to 'escaping gravity' answers that.

At atmospheric interface on re-entry, the Apollo capsules were travelling at some ~36,000 feet per second. They had to wash off the vast majority of that velocity before deploying the parachutes. This was done by the spacecraft travelling through the thickening atmosphere, where the bulk of the kinetic energy was transformed to heat. This is why spacecraft require heat shield for re-entry.

Although there is some atmospheric heating through the ascent into orbit, it is far less than on re-entry. You can see this if you think about the Space Shuttle. If the heating were too great during the ascent, it would require the heat tiles all the forward exposed profiles. But look how the tiles are arranged - because the space shuttle wipes off it's orbital speed by frictional slowing through the atmosphere. It presents the greatest surface area to the air to slow it down - it's underside - which is why this is where the tiles are!

(Another point which has already been raised: The hatch was not exposed to the atmosphere during launch in any event. It was only exposed during re-entry.)


I feel SO enlightened now, everything's cool and hunky dory. You are so so nice to spend all this time explaining why the crime isnt so, whats in it for ya?

Nothing of personal gain - I live in Australia and the closest connection I have with NASA is that my christian name has an 'S' and an 'N' in it too. Typically, we post these debunks in the hope that the stray surfer who reads this will understand that claims of hoax with regard to the Apollo landings are either malicious or born from ignorance.


He who complaineth the most has the most to hideth, as the Tale of Two Brothers in heiro says, not.

And yet curiously, the one here who seems to be complaining is you.

BigJim's original post is a satire of the typical Hoax Believer arguments. It is a cynical dig at the critical thinking skills of the purveyors of this claptrap.

(edit once for clarity)

Fortis
2004-May-21, 01:33 AM
Don't feed the troll (i.e. goodcop).
Never a wiser phrase spoken. (And I have fed one or two trolls in my time ;) )

AGN Fuel
2004-May-21, 01:44 AM
Don't feed the troll (i.e. goodcop).
Never a wiser phrase spoken. (And I have fed one or two trolls in my time ;) )

Welcome to the board, Fortis. :D


Yah, uhuh, 2 hours of Kuiper Belt rads...

I want to know when NASA was going to tell us about that mission! Makes a trip to the moon look like a Sunday afternoon drive! :lol: :lol:

Fortis
2004-May-21, 01:58 AM
Welcome to the board, Fortis. :D

Thanks. :)




Yah, uhuh, 2 hours of Kuiper Belt rads...

I want to know when NASA was going to tell us about that mission! Makes a trip to the moon look like a Sunday afternoon drive! :lol: :lol:
It would certainly Oort a bit. ;)

The Bad Astronomer
2004-May-21, 02:59 AM
goodcop, I'm giving you one chance to back off on your tone. Stop being so abrasive. Read the FAQ.

Glom
2004-May-21, 08:20 AM
I must admit you had me going. Sorry, but Im not going!

Good.


How do YOU know theres NOT radiation on the moon, when we've never been there? Balderdash. Question for a question is the hallmark of your breed. Its called lying.

That is completely circular and hence a capital offense. You question Apollo because of the unknown radiation environment and you question the radiation environment because you question Apollo. That's totally circular.

What makes you think there is huge amount of radiation there? What have you done to justify your assertion that it would destroy the film? It is intellectual laziness to just come up with a conclusion and expect it to be held until counter evidence is presented. If you want your conclusion that there was enough radiation to destroy the film held, you must provide the evidence for it. Otherwise, it is rejected by lack of support.


But, I suppose a website will now be drummed up, and few letters typed, for you to discover about this question. Special radioactive film, right? I can see it now. Excellent birds.

What? So you don't want us to lead you to the answer as to how the film survived the lunar environment? You asked questions about this and now you seem to be saying that you will give no credibility to any answer. If you're not interested, why did you ask the question?


Re your moon dust idea, how very clever but loopholed. We cannot see a halo effect comparable to the "moon phenomenon" you just made up. Pretty good tho and Im sure it would fool someone who trusts you and has no brain.

If you read the thread titled "More reality check,", you'll see I observed just such an effect while driving.


We have atmosphere. Wet grass and cold air do not simulate the moon. The atmosphere isnt taken away on those days.

The presence of an atmosphere doesn't change the optical properties of a surface.


According to you, that "huge white lit sky" would be nixing out all shadows on the ground too, on these cold, dewy mornings. That isnt so.

Straw man. We didn't say the shadows would be nixed. Just infilled.


As for jobs, you call giving friends and family nasa positions and rocket building positions not theft? Huh. I do. Nice excuse, but not flying with me.

They were employed to do a job. They did it. They got paid. That's the way employment works. You call it theft, you've got a lot to learn about the real world. The Apollo program gave people jobs, it wasn't a cover for transferring a few billion into the personal accounts of a few embezzlers.


Einstein was not a plagiarist, thats peanuts. Einstein was a ** artist and master of propaganda. Yah, uhuh, 2 hours of Kuiper Belt rads is okey dokey? Sure it is. Get real.

What has the Kuiper Belt got to do with this? We're going to the moon, not Pluto. If you're referring to the Van Allen Radiation Belts, why do you presume the radiation is at dangerous levels for short exposures? The International Space Station orbits in them continuously. It's not enough for you to make handwaving assertions without providing facts. If you want us to take your assertions seriously, you must show the evidence.


Stick to comedy. Aping is what your best at, being an ape. I can picture your chimp grin right now, with lots of big fat teeth. Maybe a dentist can shave them down for you, like your nose. Bye bye.

Ad hominem. It's a bannable offense.

Glom
2004-May-21, 08:24 AM
Re breaking the atmosphere on departure, we go FASTER to escape gravity and SLOWER to re-enter. Who do you think your fooling?

Ahem. Who do you think you're talking too? We happen to be rocket scientists. What are you? I've already explained the difference. On launch, we attempt to reduce drag since it is nothing but a hindrance. On reentry, we attempt to increase drag since it is used to bleed off the speed of orbit.

captain swoop
2004-May-21, 09:48 AM
isn't this fun :D

Bill Dunaway
2004-May-21, 11:27 AM
Several unmanned space probes in the 60's and early 70's launched by both America and the Soviet Union used film cameras. The film was developed onboard the spacecraft, digitally scanned, and transmitted back to Earth. At the time, this system gave better resolution than a purely electronic camera system. All of these missions lasted longer than Apollo, and the film managed to survive radiation exposure without significant fogging. The Russian Mars probes using film cameras took 11 months to reach their destination. Why is it so difficult for film used in the Apollo missions to last two weeks? The film spent all but three days of this time in the fairly well shielded Apollo CM.

kucharek
2004-May-21, 11:52 AM
The Lunar Orbiters, built to investigate potential landing sites for Apollo, used this method. The film had an extremly fine grain, making it very slow but also less susceptible to radiation fogging. It had only 1.6 ASA. But this film had to stay in the lunar environment for months, not for days.

Harald

CJSF
2004-May-21, 12:53 PM
Ad hominem. It's a bannable offense.

Don't you mean bananable? Heh.

CJSF :wink:

Ut
2004-May-21, 01:35 PM
Re breaking the atmosphere on departure, we go FASTER to escape gravity and SLOWER to re-enter. Who do you think your fooling?

Wait a second... The implication here is that things in orbit are going slower than things on Earth (specifically rockets). It also seems to imply that the farther away something is from the Earth, the faster it should be going. That has amazing implications toward Kepler's laws.

Even more confusing is that it implies that gravity is not a conservative force. If the rocket's moving faster going up than coming down, then substantially more energy is required to put something into space than is bled off upon reentry. This should apply everywhere, so that means a baseball will fall to the ground substantially slower than it climbs, or that an airplane crashing to the ground really shouldn't be much of a hazard for the people inside because it shouldn't be moving all that fast on impact...

SiriMurthy
2004-May-21, 05:41 PM
Thank you, BigJim. You have opened my mind's eye. I have become a HB now. :^o

You debunkers, boo!

Irishman
2004-May-21, 07:12 PM
I am leaving to find a better site. This site seems full of personal attack and child mentality instead of learned beings able to debunk peacefully.


I'd like to hear a mature comment debunking how the film was able to be developed, and not ruined by radiation on the moon -- and how we see shadowed craters, when "we all know" the moon dust nixes out shadows. If possible, that is.

What follows is a series of polite responses, a couple of testy remarks made in response to your testy tone, and at least three people attempting to provide the answers you requested, politely, accurately, and thoroughly.


How do YOU know theres NOT radiation on the moon, when we've never been there? Balderdash. Question for a question is the hallmark of your breed. Its called lying.

But, I suppose a website will now be drummed up, and few letters typed, for you to discover about this question. Special radioactive film, right? I can see it now. Excellent birds.


Stick to comedy. Aping is what your best at, being an ape. I can picture your chimp grin right now, with lots of big fat teeth. Maybe a dentist can shave them down for you, like your nose. Bye bye.

Accusations of lying, and of manufacturing fake evidence to support our position, and then insults. Yep, that sounds like mature comments and avoiding personal attack and child mentality.


Re breaking the atmosphere on departure, we go FASTER to escape gravity and SLOWER to re-enter. Who do you think your fooling?

I'm not trying to fool anyone. I am trying to explain physics to you. Yes, we have to speed up to escape gravity (or even orbit), and slow down in order to reenter. I'm not sure what you mean by "breaking the atmosphere on departure". The rocket does have to go through the atmosphere. Atmosphere does cause drag. However, the rocket starts much slower on departure than on reentry. On departure, it pushes straight up as aerodynamically as possible to get through the thick part of the atmosphere as quickly as possible, before the speed builds up. It continues to speed up outside the thick part of the atmosphere as it reaches orbital velocity. For reentry, it starts at that very high speed. It must slow down to reenter.

Here's the trick. In order to begin reentry to the atmosphere, it does not take a lot of force. You slow down a bit, and then let gravity do the rest. This takes much less fuel, which means you don't have to launch all that fuel, which makes the overall mission so much more feasible. However, you still have all that velocity. How do you slow down? Not by thrusting with fuel out the rocket, but by dragging through the atmosphere, using the friction with the atmosphere to do the work. Efficient. However, that generates a lot of heat. That heat didn't happen on launch, because you weren't traveling as fast at that altitude, and were trying to reduce drag. On the way up, low drag at lower speeds (as you speed up). On the way down, high drag at high speeds. Thus, more heat, and the need for the heat shield.

Astronot
2004-May-21, 09:46 PM
breaking the atmosphere on departure


Is this something like breaking wind on your way out the door? :P

JayUtah
2004-May-21, 10:18 PM
The ascent can be controlled. Especially for the space shuttle, which is more aerodynamically sensitive than other boosters, the ascent thrust profile can be adaptively tied to altitude, acceleration, or even measured aerodynamic pressure. Even without such explicit control, a rocket booster naturally accelerates more at higher altitude due to increased thrust and decreased mass -- and, of course, due to less aerodynamic resistance.

Re-entry, however, is a wholly self-regulating process. The entering vehicle slows exactly as much as its aerodynamics dictate. Even though aerodynamic resistance plays a part in the acceleration profile of an ascending launch vehicle, it is only one of several factors. That thrust and mass work out favorably for aerodynamics is accidental. Aerodynamic resistance is the solitary factor for re-entry. Although we can control the aerodynamic aspect, the descent is always essentially at terminal velocity. Slowing occurs because density increases and terminal velocity decreases.

Joe Durnavich
2004-May-22, 01:18 AM
Re your moon dust idea, how very clever but loopholed. We cannot see a halo effect comparable to the "moon phenomenon" you just made up. Pretty good tho and Im sure it would fool someone who trusts you and has no brain.

You don't have to be on the Moon to see the opposition effect happening there. The Moon's brightness surges dramatically during a full Moon viewed from Earth when the phase angle is less than about 5 degrees. Astronomers have studied this effect since at least the 1950s.

The Bad Astronomer
2004-May-22, 03:34 AM
Funny. I see the opposition effect (heiligenschein) every morning where I live, on wet grass. I really should put up the images I took of a baseball field showing it too. It's very dramatic.

Astronot
2004-May-22, 01:31 PM
I was introduced to the heiligenschein in a most surprising way one afternoon when I was in a window seat of an airliner coming into some airport (donít remember). I noticed the angle of the sun and looked down at the ground expecting to see the shadow of the plane. Instead I saw a bright spot moving along the ground. It was a really stunning sight when I had been expecting a dark area. As we descended the shadow did appear and the heiligenschein faded. I didnít really understand the causes until several years later.

Joe Durnavich
2004-May-22, 01:46 PM
01101001 started this thread in the Martian Chronicles forum:

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=13705

He included this link that illustrates and explains the opposition effect:

http://www.engl.paraselene.de/html/opposition_effect.html

SpitfireIX
2004-May-22, 03:08 PM
...a rocket booster naturally accelerates more at higher altitude due to increased thrust and decreased mass -- and, of course, due to less aerodynamic resistance.

Jay, why does thrust increase at higher altitude?

Glom
2004-May-22, 03:32 PM
Jay, why does thrust increase at higher altitude?

Jay obviously knows better, but I might imagine that increased acceleration due to reducing mass causes a greater fuel flow rate.

kucharek
2004-May-22, 04:08 PM
Jay, why does thrust increase at higher altitude?

Jay obviously knows better, but I might imagine that increased acceleration due to reducing mass causes a greater fuel flow rate.
I'm not Jay, but I know it better than you. :D
The exhaust gas has to expand to produce thrust. The lower the outside pressure, the better the expansion of the gas and the higher the thrust of the engine.

Harald

JayUtah
2004-May-22, 04:51 PM
Fuel flow remains constant, barring throttles. The drop in ambient pressure lets exhaust products exit with less resistance. Momentum thrust increases, even with the suboptimal plume shape. Further, pressure thrust increases for the reason I just said.

Bob B.
2004-May-22, 04:54 PM
Jay obviously knows better, but I might imagine that increased acceleration due to reducing mass causes a greater fuel flow rate.
In rocketry, the basic thrust equation is written as

F = q x Ve + (Pe - Pa) x Ae

where q is the rate of the ejected mass flow, Ve is the exhaust gas ejection speed, Pe is the pressure of the exhaust gases at the nozzle exit, Pa is the pressure of the ambient atmosphere, and Ae is the area of the nozzle exit. The product qVe is called the momentum, or velocity, thrust. The product (Pe-Pa)Ae, called the pressure thrust, is the result of unbalanced pressure forces at the nozzle exit.

The variables q, Ve, Pe and Ae are all functions of the engine design and are essentially unchanging during an engine burn. However, Pa is a function of altitude and decreases as a rocket rises through the atmosphere. As Pa decreases, thrust increases.

JayUtah
2004-May-22, 05:17 PM
Ve is a scalar approximation of a complex vector sum. Even as a scalar, exhaust velocity is not constant across the exit plane. However Ve as the geometric average of exhaust velocity across the exit plane is a quite suitable for nearly all computations. Nozzle designers treat the Ve distribution as a statistical problem and seek a minimization of variance at the optimal altitude. We try to make Ve constant across the exit plane, but we rarely do.

Ve as a vector quantity is best studied with computational fluid dynamics.

Pe isn't constant across the exit plane either, but here too geometric averages work just fine. As Bob said, that is the basic thrust model. Engineers seeking to fine-tune an engine will delve into the complexity which that model abstracts.

johnwitts
2004-May-22, 10:57 PM
Also, don't forget that the rocket gets a hell of a lot lighter as the fuel is used up. At burnout of the first stage of a Saturn V, the bottom third of the rocket that was once filled with fuel is now an empty tin can.

Extravoice
2004-May-23, 01:50 AM
While you guys are on the topic of rocket exhaust, I have a related question...at least I think it's related.

In photographs of jet engines with their afterburners engaged, there often appears to be a periodic appearance to the exhaust, as if the exhaust was being pulsed in some way. Here is an example (http://www.zero5designs.com/sr71/photos/ec93-03092-5.jpg).

Are these pulses real, or are they a photographic artifact? Either way, they do look cool. 8)

Nowhere Man
2004-May-23, 02:33 AM
Those are called shock diamonds. It's something to do with the exhaust coming out at supersonic speeds. Google up "shock diamonds" for info and pix.

Fred

Fortis
2004-May-23, 02:47 AM
IIRC they're also referred to as Mach disks, though you'll google more astrophysics articles with this term. :)

genebujold
2004-May-24, 02:04 PM
How do YOU know theres NOT radiation on the moon, when we've never been there? Balderdash.

If that isn't the cat chasing it's tale, I don't know what is...


Special radioactive film, right? I can see it now....

Actually, all film is designed to react to electromagnetic radiation - but just not all electromagnetic radiation.

Infrared film reacts only to electromagnetic radiation (EM) in the infrared band. Dosimeter film is designed to react to a different type of radiation, called "particle radiation," in short, the kind that tends to fog films.

The lunar surface is full of em radiation, as the sun is very bright. That's why the camera's have filters, to cut down on the brightness.

But there's little additional particle radiation. Nevertheless, very slight shielding, such as gold foil (and the cameras, the lunar module, and the face-masks were covered in it) is an effective shield against particle radiation of the type experienced on the moon.


Einstein was not a plagiarist, thats peanuts. Einstein was a ** artist and master of propaganda. Yah, uhuh, 2 hours of Kuiper Belt rads is okey dokey? Sure it is. Get real.

Unshielded, no.

Shielded, yes.

We've been very nice to address your concerns politely - please show us the same respect.

Thank you.

genebujold
2004-May-24, 02:13 PM
Jay, why does thrust increase at higher altitude?

Jay obviously knows better, but I might imagine that increased acceleration due to reducing mass causes a greater fuel flow rate.
I'm not Jay, but I know it better than you. :D
The exhaust gas has to expand to produce thrust. The lower the outside pressure, the better the expansion of the gas and the higher the thrust of the engine.

Harald

Nope!

The greatest weight fraction (component) of a rocket is its fuel. As that's burned off, the rocket gets lighter and lighter, up to around 1/6th its weight towards the end of its burn.

If thrust (force) remains constant (and it does, except for the comparitively slight drop in ambient external pressure), as mass reduces, then acceleration increases.

And yes, I'm a rocket scientist, too.

Well, at least I used to be, before I got into computers, networking, networking security, etc.

genebujold
2004-May-24, 02:16 PM
Jay obviously knows better, but I might imagine that increased acceleration due to reducing mass causes a greater fuel flow rate.
In rocketry, the basic thrust equation is written as

F = q x Ve + (Pe - Pa) x Ae

where q is the rate of the ejected mass flow, Ve is the exhaust gas ejection speed, Pe is the pressure of the exhaust gases at the nozzle exit, Pa is the pressure of the ambient atmosphere, and Ae is the area of the nozzle exit. The product qVe is called the momentum, or velocity, thrust. The product (Pe-Pa)Ae, called the pressure thrust, is the result of unbalanced pressure forces at the nozzle exit.

The variables q, Ve, Pe and Ae are all functions of the engine design and are essentially unchanging during an engine burn. However, Pa is a function of altitude and decreases as a rocket rises through the atmosphere. As Pa decreases, thrust increases.

Yes, but acceleration is a function of both force and mass (F=ma, for the non-rocket scientists, also shown as a=F/m).

While the force does increase slightly (very slightly) as the rocket ascends and the external pressure drops, the effect is minimal, as the internal pressures inside the rocket are many, many times greater than 1 atmosphere.

On the other hand, see previous post about how the fuel weight fraction of a rocket.

kucharek
2004-May-24, 02:29 PM
If thrust (force) remains constant (and it does, except for the comparitively slight drop in ambient external pressure), as mass reduces, then acceleration increases.
If my figures are not wrong, the SSME has a sea level thrust of 375,000 pounds and a vacuum thrust of 470,000 pounds. I wouldn't call this "very slightly". Yes, the difference between 200 atm inside and 1 or 0 atm outside is not very large, but AFAIK what goes somewhere into the terms is the pressure ratio. And this changes very much between 200/1 and 200/0 ;-)

Harald

JMV
2004-May-24, 03:32 PM
Jay, why does thrust increase at higher altitude?

Jay obviously knows better, but I might imagine that increased acceleration due to reducing mass causes a greater fuel flow rate.
I'm not Jay, but I know it better than you. :D
The exhaust gas has to expand to produce thrust. The lower the outside pressure, the better the expansion of the gas and the higher the thrust of the engine.

Harald

Nope!

The greatest weight fraction (component) of a rocket is its fuel. As that's burned off, the rocket gets lighter and lighter, up to around 1/6th its weight towards the end of its burn.

If thrust (force) remains constant (and it does, except for the comparitively slight drop in ambient external pressure), as mass reduces, then acceleration increases.

And yes, I'm a rocket scientist, too.

Well, at least I used to be, before I got into computers, networking, networking security, etc.
But SpitfireIX's original question was about increase of thrust, not acceleration, so wouldn't the decrease of ambient pressure be the right anwer to the question.

JayUtah
2004-May-24, 04:00 PM
Correct. A 10-20% increase in total thrust due to vacuum effects is not uncommon.

steve45071
2004-May-25, 02:24 PM
Hi,

Just reading through your book Phil - Bad Astronomy

page 160 - on the Lunar Conspiracy

Ron Paris comments about hardly seeing any stars at all whilst on the Shuttle

"Being outside the Earth's atmosphere doesn't make the stars appear any brighter at all"

But what about clarity ? or resolution ?

My point being, wasn't that why the Hubble Space Telescope was put into orbit? to get out of the polluted muck of the Earth's atmosphere, to obtain much better resolution images of distant galaxies.

And of course, that has indeed turned out to be the case. Hubble has captured the most amazing images

Cheers, Steve

JayUtah
2004-May-25, 02:55 PM
You do get greater clarity above the atmosphere, but that's not generally a difference you're going to see with the naked eye. Atmospheric distortion is much more a factor for hard-core astronomy than it is for casual stargazing.

Jason Thompson
2004-May-25, 02:59 PM
There is a difference between the increased resolution possible for a mechanical instrument and the difference observed by a person in space. The stars visible to the naked eye do not apparently seem significantly brighter in space, although they will not twinkle as they do on earth. However, the faint light from distant galaxies that is too faint to register on the human retina can enter the Hubble telescope unimpeded by an atmosphere and hence produce beautifully sharp images impossible for a ground based telescope to obtain. Hubble also sits looking at a point in space for several hours gathering light to obtain those images of distant galaxies.

Additionally, if I understand the situation correctly, the atmosphere does dim the light from the stars to a very small extent. Compared to the brightness of the naked eye stars, this attenuation is negligible, hence the stars do not appear brighter in space to a person. However, when talking about the extremely faint objects imaged by Hubble atmospheric attenuation does become significant, so the fainter objects in the Hubble images will be blotted out by the atmosphere to a significant extent (I'm open to correction on this), and of course blurred beyond all recognition by atmospheric turbulence.

Kaptain K
2004-May-26, 10:39 AM
The three effects of atmosphere that putting Hubble into orbit eliminates are (in order):
1) Turbulence
2) Airglow
3) Extinction

Turbulence is by far the most problematic. It is a serious problem even for amateur size scopes.

Even in the absence of light pollution, the air itself glows very faintly - this is a factor in long exposures.

Extinction at the zenith is a minor factor, but it varies with altitude above the horizon (and also altitude above sea level).

These factors are also the reason that big ground scopes are located at or near "sherpa altitude".

Irishman
2004-May-27, 01:46 PM
Okay, I understand turbulence and airglow, what is extinction? (Cue lame dinosaur joke.)

Hamlet
2004-May-27, 02:17 PM
Okay, I understand turbulence and airglow, what is extinction? (Cue lame dinosaur joke.)

Extinction is the scattering or absorbtion of light as it travels through the atmosphere. Some wavelengths are affected more than others. The end result is there is a bit less light to hit our eyes or telescopes than if there were no atmosphere.

Kaptain K
2004-May-27, 03:48 PM
Extinction is the absorbtion of light by the atmosphere. It is least at the zenith and greatest at the horizon.

Glom
2004-May-27, 03:51 PM
It is least at the zenith and greatest at the horizon.

As are there other two. Turbulence because, like extinction, the light has more atmosphere through which to travel. Sky glow because the shallower angle causes more reflection.

Kaptain K
2004-May-27, 04:12 PM
It is least at the zenith and greatest at the horizon.

As are there other two. Turbulence because, like extinction, the light has more atmosphere through which to travel. Sky glow because the shallower angle causes more reflection.
I'm not talking about light pollution, I'm talking about the fact that the molecules of the atmosphere itself fluoresce due to ionizing radiation.