Moon Walkers.

[tinman]

Quote from PW

Don't bother, the questions were rhetorical.  It seems rather apparent that you have never done any design work for life critical systems or flight/spaceflight rated systems.  If you believe human spaceflight is such a piece of cake, perhaps you should consider consulting for, or at least setting straight, the likes of Elon Musk or Sir Richard.  That you think it is so easy and a bunch of "rubbish" borders on delusions of grandeur.

I am not delusional ,thank you very much.
I have never said that i could,or have the ability to design or build spaceflight rated systems,but at the age of 27,my self and a friend designed and built an ultralight aircraft,and that flew quite fine.

What i did claim(and still do),is that i could build a lunar rover for half the cost that NASA paid for each of theirs. There is nothing special about the lunar rover's. The assumption that they must have been some great feat of engineering because they must work in the partial vacuum of space is just wrong.

Before we get started on this part of the subject,lets come to some sort of agreement of the temperatures on both the moon surface,in the shade/shadow's,and in direct sun light. We should also both come to the agreement that there is no convection of heat on the moon,due to no atmosphere/due to the vacuum of space on the moon. But we would also agree that heat can be transferred by means of conduction.

As far as i can find,---Temperatures on the moon swing from 120 degrees Celsius (248 degrees Fahrenheit) by day to minus 150 degrees Celsius (minus 238 degrees Fahrenheit) by night.

That information in it self raises some interesting question's--like how did the astronauts stay warm at night?. But we'll leave that for later. For now,lets get as accurate as we can on temperatures in direct sun light on the moon.-->surface temperature-what temperature would metal objects reach in direct sun light-what temperatures would be seen on metal objects/components when shaded by other objects. Once we have these number's,then maybe you will see!!not only!! how easy it is to design the vehicle,but also some other things that just dont add up !once again!

I am going to go as far as building a decent size vacuum chamber(as large as funds permit). With this,we can carry out many test to confirm what dose and dose not happen in a vacuum. One of the test i cant wait to carry out,is to see if any blast crater is created when a rocket engine gets close to a dusty dry surface in a vacuum. But that will be some ways down the track. I already have the vacuum pump,so need to gather the vessel,gauges,and super thick plexiglass face plate.

Anyway-what temperatures do you believe are the values to that i posted above ?.


Brad

[picowatt]

Well apparently there is no problem with the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter launched on August 12, 2005, . The picture is of a track left after a boulder rolled down a hill !apparently!. The boulder is said to be about only 3.5 meters wide.

Out of every satellite and telescope ever launched,not one has the capability to take a clear shot of any of the equipment left behind on the moon by the moon walkers--not one. Even other countries that have sent satellites and rovers to the moon have never taken one clear picture of any of the equipment left behind by the U.S.

Tinman,

Although I have not looked at the MRO specs, the MRO image you posted looks to have a resolution similar to or a bit less than that of the Apollo 11 image TK posted.  3.5 meters is very close to the LEM dimensions.  I do know that the same Kodak image sensor used on the LROC is also used on the Mars rover.

In the MRO image you posted, where is the boulder?  Would you be able to tell there even is, or was, a boulder without an imaging expert telling you that is what it is? 

Take a look at your airport photo.  Zoom in on the tug in front of the most centrally located aircraft.  Would you be able to tell that is a tug without already knowing what it is?

Very few countries have placed anything into lunar orbit and captured images, let alone at the resolution of LROC.  Like building a lunar rover, you underestimate the difficulty of the task and under appreciate the results achieved.

Even if we had higher resolution imagery of the Apollo sites, people like you would likely just claim those images to be fake.  In the future, when another country or private venture is able to capture better images, you would likely claim those entities are also in on "the great conspiracy".  And if you were able to fly to the moon and see the landing sites for yourself, you would likely claim they have just been staged and placed there.

Even though you have provided no credible evidence to support your assertions that the Apollo missions did not happen, what, exactly, would you accept as proof that the Apollo missions did happen?  What evidence would be sufficient to change what has become your "beliefs"?

PW

[picowatt]

There is nothing special about the lunar rover's. The assumption that they must have been some great feat of engineering because they must work in the partial vacuum of space is just wrong.

Like I said, the cost of the hardware to actually build the rovers was insignificant compared to the cost to design, test, and certify the operation of the rovers.  Please don't feel the need to start spouting what you believe to be a rover design suitable for launch to and operation on the moon.   Do you seriously think yourself qualified to perform even the thermodynamic analysis necessary to design your thermal management system?  Do you know how innovative and yet elegantly simple the rover's thermal management system was?

The fact that you cannot see the engineering marvels used in the deigns of the very simple lunar rover used during Apollo only indicates that you do not understand the difficulty of the task.  Look how long China's recent robotic lunar rover was able to move about before it failed. 

That you "think" you could do better or cheaper has no bearing on whether Apollo did or did not happen and only erodes your credibility.

Before we get started on this part of the subject,lets come to some sort of agreement of the temperatures on both the moon surface,in the shade/shadow's,and in direct sun light.

I need to get some work done, so I likely won't be wasting much more time on this subject.

But, how about before YOU go any further you address the refutation of your claims regarding the Van Allen belts?

What you stated was simply not true and yet you just continue on as if it were.

[picowatt]

Before we get started on this part of the subject,lets come to some sort of agreement of the temperatures on both the moon surface,in the shade/shadow's,and in direct sun light. We should also both come to the agreement that there is no convection of heat on the moon,due to no atmosphere/due to the vacuum of space on the moon. But we would also agree that heat can be transferred by means of conduction.

Conduction to what?  You could conduct some heat away to the lunar surface, but the lunar soil/dust is said to not be a very good conductor of heat. 

As far as i can find,---Temperatures on the moon swing from 120 degrees Celsius (248 degrees Fahrenheit) by day to minus 150 degrees Celsius (minus 238 degrees Fahrenheit) by night.

I've seen figures stated as extreme as  +/- 200C (+392 to -328F)

That information in it self raises some interesting question's--like how did the astronauts stay warm at night?.

This question can only be asked from a position of extreme ignorance of the subject matter.

Perhaps you should take the time to learn a bit more about the Apollo missions before trying to prove they did not happen...

PW

[ramset]

Johan 1955 says
quote

The Netherlands are best friends with US!


So we did get a very special gift in the sixties from our liberating friends, only Russia did do the job:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8226075.stm


--------------
things like the above don't help the cause

I have been unable to get any good pics from earth bound mountain top observatories.

plenty of Guys on you tube seem to get nice clear images with small private scopes, although I have seen
very close Horizon images [albeit blurry] from Private astronomers .

it would seem radio imaging from an earth observatory could get very good feedback from the metal artifacts left on the lunar surface ?

where's all the good Moon pics ?
do you have any idea how much interest NASA [or whomever] could generate if we pointed the Hubble scope at the Moon for some close ups so the kids could see the old sites ?
some 8x10 glossy's of the old Landers and buggy's

talk about getting the wallet out for space exploration ??

seems the moon is too Boring ?

I have been unable to find any pics from an observatory on earth which are any better that a good hobby scope [albeit an expensive scope]

something is screwy and its causing the younger generations that were not around during this time  to suspect this was fake
or something else.

you must admit 40 -50 years  ??  dropped like a hot potatoe....
that's the real problem here IMHO.