| Moon Landings - Question.
Posted: 6/25/2009 1:50:21 PM | The space suits worn in the Apollo missions included a nappy type thing.
I understand they had steak and eggs breakfast etc before they left too..
Presumably they had to keep their suits on for the entire duration of a mission, and so the "nappy" must have been full of shite after a long mission ?
How hot does it get on the moon in the full glare of the sun ?
The moon buggy was stored where on the lander ? Was it left on the moon or returned ?
Are there valuable minerals on the moon ?
| |
|
| Moon Landings - Question.
Posted: 6/25/2009 2:08:00 PM | | No, they got to take 'em off in flight (didn't you see Apollo 13?) and presumably on the moon, once they landed. So they got to change their nappies. No worries there. | |
|
| Moon Landings - Question.
Posted: 6/25/2009 2:22:20 PM | | You sure you can't find a better forum, web site for getting these answers? | |
|
| |
| Moon Landings - Question.
Posted: 6/25/2009 2:53:15 PM | How hot? Someone else mentioned about 100C (which is the temperature water boils at on Earth), the number I've seen is a bit higher. It is hot enough that some aluminium alloys would be questionable due to "coarsening" reactions. Lunar night is cryogenic (similar to temperatures needed for liquified gases such as oxygen and nitrogen). Regions of permanent shadow near the poles are considerably colder.
The buggy is still there.
Define valuable? There are thought to be considerable reserves of a rare isotope of helium (He-3) in the regolith (soil) of the Moon. Fusion reactions involving He-3 have many advantages over fusion reactions considered from reactants easily available on Earth. A few people have developed strawman business plans to bring He-3 to Earth.
In general, the number of processes which can concentrate minerals are much fewer on the Moon than on Earth. Which makes it less likely that valuable ores will be found. If we develop a presence on the Moon (Mars, asteroid belt, ...), what is more likely to happen is that we will need to process to the end, any suitable material. There will be uses for the minor and trace elements of any resource, which will probably preclude the resource being used directly. For example, typical of cryogenic "steels", we need 9% or more nickel. There is a component of the regolith (soil) which is actually nickel-iron meteorite "dust". Some of these nickel-iron meteorites are only about 9% nickel. Others are considerably higher in nickel. But they also have a lot of other metals which are useful for other purposes. To try and make an iron structure (probably not a steel, as carbon is hard to find too) from this nickel-iron meteorite fraction is probably not too difficult. The problem is that we then lose all the other non-necessary elements (cobalt and others) which are really not needed in terms of what we know on Earth for building structures. | |
|
| Moon Landings - Question.
Posted: 6/25/2009 3:10:01 PM |
You sure you can't find a better forum, web site for getting these answers?
A better forum???? ...better than the great community that one finds on POF??? The nerve of such thought. 
On the approch to the 40th anniversary of Man's greatest achivement to date (primarily to find the first place in the universe where Starbucks and MacDonald's haven't been already) there's plenty of questions that still need answering...
...questions such as:
1. What was going through Buzz Aldrin's mind that cost him that first step onto The Moon...Rock, Scissors or Paper?
2. Did they find a Norwegean flag already planted on the Moon when they got there?
After all, the Norwegeans have a proud history of getting to new places before everyone else. They beat Columbus to America and got to the South Pole before Scott of the Antarctic. 
3. Are we ever going to go back to the Moon? (maybe colonise it a wee bit?) | |
|
| Moon Landings - Question.
Posted: 6/25/2009 3:27:45 PM | ^ Well, you can eliminate rock......rock ALWAYS wins.
PS: It was probably scissors. | |
|
| Moon Landings - Question.
Posted: 6/25/2009 3:35:44 PM | Funkymonkee, your questions are deep. May I combine three of them?...
Given that the surface temperature of the moon can reach 'egg cookingly' high temperatures....just imagine the resulting stench of the 'steak and egg shite' filled nappies in such a climate. Gathering data through the pong must of been a mountain that even the strongest hearts came close to dying on.
My dad used to joke; if the air ran out on a submarine and somebody farted.... Would everyone run around and try to sniff it up??? | |
|
| Moon Landings - Question.
Posted: 6/25/2009 4:31:03 PM | | As I remember things, all of the Moon landings were more or less near dawn. That was to avoid the very cold lunar night and the very hot lunar day. A "day" on the Moon is nominally the same as a month on Earth (the same face of the Moon is seen on Earth all the time). While "dawn" is an hour or two on Earth, on the Moon it is considerably longer (10-30 hours). | |
|
| Moon Landings - Question.
Posted: 6/25/2009 4:42:56 PM | | Is the moon mentioned significantly (ie other than just in passing) in the Bible or The Koran - if not why not ? | |
|
| |
| Moon Landings - Question.
Posted: 6/25/2009 5:00:09 PM | Oh and to clear up a misconception, the moon doesnt rotate, there is no day and night, just a light side and a dark side. They couldnt of landed at "dawn" the best they could do is land on the edge of light and dark, in which case the shadows they cast would be super elongated. Which they didnt, the shadows cast would indecate they landed on the day side. I wonder what their boots were made of that didnt melt?
Also about the rover....why the hell would you bring it where would you go with it? They had to micromanage the amount of weight they could bring so why would you bring a golf cart??
And finally....the lander. The feet of the thing look like twigs. how do you go from 1000's of miles per hour to a soft landing straight down? There is no atmosphere to slow you down. No way in hell they had any kind of rockets to slow them down enough. At best they could go into a decaying orbit to burn off extra velocity which would make them land sideways at about 1000mph, discentegrating the lander.
Look at the mars rover missions. They landed the rovers by deploying parachutes in the atmosphere to slow them down, then released them in an inflatable balloon like cocoon that hit the surface and bounced back up many times before settling on the surface. The kinds of G's the rovers went through to land would of killed a human 10 times over. Thats the only way they could do it so how the hell did they land on the moon? | |
|
| Moon Landings - Question.
Posted: 6/25/2009 5:42:45 PM |
Oh and to clear up a misconception, the moon doesnt rotate, there is no day and night, just a light side and a dark side.
Okay then...so, I'm guessing you're trying to cast "doubt" on the moon landings. Okay, here goes.
First of all, clearly the moon does rotate. It would have to to show the same face to us all through it's revolution around Earth. In fact, having actually viewed the moon through a telescope, I can tell you that I have watched features along the terminator (the day/night line, not the movie) emerge from darkness. It's a neat effect.
We see one face because the moon is tidally locked. And yes, they did land on the lighted side of the moon, not on a soundstage in, well, wherever. Capricorn One was a movie. Not a documentary.
I wonder what their boots were made of that didnt melt? Obviously, you don't do a lot of baking, otherwise you would know there are materials that can sustain temperatures well above 100 and 200 deg. C, which is the typical temperature range of the lit side of the moon.
Also about the rover....why the hell would you bring it where would you go with it? They had to micromanage the amount of weight they could bring so why would you bring a golf cart??
Apollo 15 brought it and it was brought so they could range further than previous landings. While weight is at a premium, they made an effort to account for it. And it was left there because it came in on the lander, not on the ascent vehicle.
And finally....the lander. The feet of the thing look like twigs. how do you go from 1000's of miles per hour to a soft landing straight down? There is no atmosphere to slow you down. No way in hell they had any kind of rockets to slow them down enough.
Actually, yes they did. Remember, the moon is not Mars. It's smaller, less massive, has no atmosphere and so makes a landing easier. Essentially, all they did was bring their orbit lower and lower, using thrusters and the main engine to slow them down to a manageable speed. Any orbit is a controlled fall. They just controlled their fall all the way to the surface.
The answers are easy to find. Of course, if you prefer to think you know "the truth," then have fun. They say ignorance is bliss, it's just not a good idea to advertise it. | |
|
| Moon Landings - Question.
Posted: 6/25/2009 5:46:17 PM |
Oh and to clear up a misconception, the moon doesnt rotate
Sorry mate, you're way off on that one. The moon is tidally locked to earth, which means it doesn't rotate with respect to earth only. However, it does orbit the earth - that's why we get lunar cycles, as the moon occupies different positions relative to the earth and sun together, instead of an eternally frozen orb in the heavens. | |
|
| Moon Landings - Question.
Posted: 6/25/2009 7:14:06 PM | Th buggy was stored in a compartment outside. It needed "some assembly" before use...kind of like those fold away bikes we have.
It is sitting there...ready to use again.
They had negative "g" toilets...one of the things they had to work out before Apollo could head for the moon.
The suits came off when they got up...the idea was to use the suits as "protective gear" on takeoff and landing. Otherwise, it was a shirtsleeve environment.
The suits for women...well...they used to have a kind of a "sandbox"....enough said? I am sure they are improved now.
minerals? Yes. We could make a lot of things...air, water, aluminum, whatever we need. With all the sunlight, we have plenty of power...without the freakin' eco-nuts going BS on solar array farms.
The problem is the dust. Bulldozing it is going to create a messy cloud, that won't settle for an average of six minutes. So, continuous wipers and high intensity lamps, or remote piloting...hard to say what they'll do.
We could just throw a large sheet over a small crater, inflate it, then stiffen it with spray foam. It should hold the heat in, and most of the air, plus provide protection from micrometeorites. Also, it would help provide a "safe" area to de-suit for awhile.
Lots of idea out there...with only one sixth of a "g" affecting things it could be interesting to see how construction there is comparable to underwater construction here.
Let's not forget...the billions spent on the Apollo missions were never "wasted" performing a stunt.
All those dollars sy=tayed right here on earth, firing the economy...just as a huge boost in the space program could do today!
All it takes is a president with a bit of an eye for the future! | |
|
| Moon Landings - Question.
Posted: 6/25/2009 8:22:55 PM | | Actually the "dust" problem is worse. It seems that with "daylight" comes a lot of static charging. The dust can stay suspended for significantly longer than 6 minutes. That all of the dust particles have sharp edges (never weathered) aggravates problems with the dust. | |
|
| Moon Landings - Question.
Posted: 6/25/2009 8:37:11 PM | Shortly after posting I realized my mistake about the moon not rotating. In relation to the earth it doesnt rotate but in relation to the sun it does...oops.
As for the lander I stick to my opinion. That popsicle stand would never survive landing no matter how perfect they tried. The best they could do for mars was deploy a parachute and let the landers drag through the atmosphere until they slowed and got low enough to drop the lander inside a honeycomb of inflatable air bags, which made it bounce hard several times before stopping. The moon has no atmosphere and making a craft go from 6000km/h to soft landing with what? little thrusters? Thats like peeing out the window on a plane.
Oh and...how did it take off after landing? The thing is so small it barely had room for the astronauts and its own guts. the rocket to get it off earth was like 10 times its mass. So what gave it lift off velocity? And when coming back to earth, the craft needs heat sheilds and a parachute to slow it again, which at least is easier then dealing with the moon with no atmosphere. Where are the heat sheilds and parachute? Was the lunar lander built on gilligans island where everything is 4 times bigger on the inside? | |
|
| Moon Landings - Question.
Posted: 6/25/2009 9:08:33 PM | Shortly after posting I realized my mistake about the moon not rotating. In relation to the earth it doesnt rotate...
Sorry, but you're still wrong. (Don't you just hate days like this?  )
The moon makes one rotation on its axis in the same period of time that it takes to make one complete revolution around the earth. Therefore, it appears to keep mostly one side facing the earth at all times. But it does rotate. (And saying "in relation to the earth" is redundant. All rotations are absolute, not relative. That's how we can determine whether the earth is rotating... or if the universe is going around us.) | |
|
| Moon Landings - Question.
Posted: 6/25/2009 10:36:46 PM | Okay 1357113, here's a suggestion...read a book. Then you might understand some of the concepts like lower gravity, no atmosphere, thrust to weight ratios, etc., etc.
Seriously, if you have only opinion, fine. However, an informed opinion is better. All this information is available. There have been plenty of people, just like you, who've tried to argue the moon landing "hoax." Their "proof" has all be thoroughly trounced. The moon landings happened. People in the 1960s were smart enough and motivated enough to make it happen.
And, hopefully, they will do it again. Sadly, there will be still others who will insist that was a hoax too. | |
|
| Moon Landings - Question.
Posted: 6/25/2009 10:52:59 PM | It is very hard for anyone to take you seriously when it is so obvious that you have no idea what you are referring to:
And when coming back to earth, the craft needs heat sheilds and a parachute to slow it again, which at least is easier then dealing with the moon with no atmosphere. Where are the heat sheilds and parachute?
The heat shield and the parachutes were on/in the re-entry capsule, which was attached to the command module which remained in orbit around the moon while the lunar lander descended to the surface of the moon.
How could it be that you are so well versed on the subject of the moon missions that you can claim to have knowledge that these landings were faked, and yet not know that?
I watched the first lunar landing on television because it was such a momentous event that our entire elementary school was allowed to do so during classes. That alone should be proof enough that it was real, because, when else are students all allowed to watch TV during class? Doesn't happen. | |
|
| Moon Landings - Question.
Posted: 6/25/2009 11:20:43 PM | 13571113, I once taught a class of fourth and fifth graders, ages 9 - 11, about model and high-power rocketry. One of the students asserted that the moon landing(s) were faked.
His arguments were infinitely more intelligent than yours - just as wrong, but he at least understood the basics of space flight, landing dynamics on a low-gravity, airless body, and re-entry. | |
|
| Moon Landings - Question.
Posted: 6/25/2009 11:25:26 PM | >>>Oh and...how did it take off after landing?
You...you've never bothered to even research the most mundane of questions reguarding the moon landings- you've just scoffed that its impossible, and thats that.
I mean, if you came in here asking "how did this happen", I'm sure, as we've seen above, many users would gladly explain how the capsules worked, what the astronauts shat in, and how much fuel each capsule carried. But I think its perceicely that attitude that you know so much that you're above even bothering to understand the concept of how it worked before disregarding the entire thing as a hoax, that is offending people...
Eitherway, the answer is, it had an additional rocket to propell them off the moon- the rocket didn't need to be as large because the moon is not as large- there is less gravity on the moon, which is why they were able to hop around like that. So, naturally, it takes more energy to leave the Earth than leave the Moon. No one is saying the Astronauts weren't cramped, either- their comfort took backseat to reliablity. | |
|
| Moon Landings - Question.
Posted: 6/25/2009 11:36:24 PM |
Look at the mars rover missions. They landed the rovers by deploying parachutes in the atmosphere to slow them down, then released them in an inflatable balloon like cocoon that hit the surface and bounced back up many times before settling on the surface. The kinds of G's the rovers went through to land would of killed a human 10 times over. Thats the only way they could do it so how the hell did they land on the moon?
You don't look old enough to remember the Viking landings on Mars, so I'll forgive your ignorance of the fact that while they used heat shields and parachutes to initially slow down, the final landings were done with thrusters.
No bouncy balls were used in the Viking landings.
Now, kindly direct your attention to this site http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html and educate yourself. | |
|
| Moon Landings - Question.
Posted: 6/26/2009 12:55:59 AM | I remember over 30 years ago when I was much younger there was still fascination in the idea of space travel and precocious kids like me knew all of this stuff from devouring every book on space flight we could get our hands on and watching available documentary there was...some of us practically lived in our school library and knew every Apollo mission stat off by heart...
It. is. f**king. dismal. to see the kind of ignorance about science and spaceflight that gets talked about sometimes in these forums by supposedly people who have passed through the public education system and moreover have working televisions and likely the capacity to get library cards...
I have to ask...what the hell happened to the eduction system and the shortened attention span? Is this startling evidence that people ARE getting stupider? Who are these "moon landing hoax" jackasses?
I think we need to get in a van, get Buzz Aldrin, Neil Armstrong, a case of whiskey and some baseball bats and moon rocks and personally visit each and every one of them and go "Walking Tall" on them and give them a moon-rock enema. And then bury them up to their necks in moon dust...and perhaps at the end, tie them onto an Atlas rocket and fire them into orbit like Wile E. Coyote.
You don't look old enough to remember the Viking landings on Mars, so I'll forgive your ignorance of the fact that while they used heat shields and parachutes to initially slow down, the final landings were done with thrusters.
No bouncy balls were used in the Viking landings.
Now, kindly direct your attention to this site http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html and educate yourself.
Damn straight. You tell 'im!  | |
|
| Moon Landings - Question.
Posted: 6/26/2009 1:04:29 AM |
I remember over 30 years ago when I was much younger there was still fascination in the idea of space travel and precocious kids like me knew all of this stuff from devouring every book on space flight we could get our hands on and watching available documentary there was...some of us practically lived in our school library and knew every Apollo mission stat off by heart...
It. is. f**king. dismal. to see the kind of ignorance about science and spaceflight that gets talked about sometimes in these forums by supposedly people who have passed through the public education system and moreover have working televisions and likely the capacity to get library cards...
I have to ask...what the hell happened to the eduction system and the shortened attention span? Is this startling evidence that people ARE getting stupider? Who are these "moon landing hoax" jackasses?
I think we need to get in a van, get Buzz Aldrin, Neil Armstrong, a case of whiskey and some baseball bats and moon rocks and personally visit each and every one of them and go "Walking Tall" on them and give them a moon-rock enema. And then bury them up to their necks in moon dust...and perhaps at the end, tie them onto an Atlas rocket and fire them into orbit like Wile E. Coyote.
This is pretty much exactly what I've been saying for a while now . What the f@ck happened to our society so that now it's so acceptable to be intellectually lazy ? Did our education system completely crap out in the last twenty or thirty years or what ? No wonder kids can't read or even add anything up anymore....they're told that they don't need to actually know anything. They just need to feel good about themselves. The dumbest idea ever conceived for the education system is the self-esteem movement and mark my words , that movement is the root of our current woes with academic standards and performance. Mostly it has eliminated the need to actually have kids learn about critical thinking. Critical thinking is just completely ignored now and even basic scientific tenets have been replaced with "Does it feel true to you ? That's all that really matters."
Sorry....had to rant. Anyway , yes , I agree with you Mad and the above is my theory of why. The inmates are running the asylum. | |
|
Home
login 
